It's been 100 years since something exploded over Siberia and flattened a whole bunch of trees and there's thoughts of near earth objects and the disturbing news that a Tunguska event could happen pretty much anywhere anytime. You remember the scene in Armageddon when Billy Bob Thornton remarks somewhat accurately that 'it's a big-ass sky' well, it is and we should be investing some more money on the issue. Yet another reason why we need billionaire space nerds in this country and still one more black mark against a NASA that needs a new vision and a country that needs to wake up to the fact that an asteroid could hit pretty much at any time and wipe out our civilization.
Get us to the moon and set up an observatory on the far side. Just go somewhere and do something already. Explore some of that big-ass sky.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Geekologie Makes My Day
I love Geekologie. For reasons like this: I totally want to do this, see one of these and hopefully afford one of them one day, and for bringing light to people who have been searching for one of these all their lives.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
On Iran
Seymour Hersh has a great new piece in the New Yorker on the steps the Bush Administration is taking to prepare for possible military action against Iran. It's quite a lengthy piece, but it's a must read for some seriously disturbing information.
If one assumes that Hersh is on the level (and he's got the rep for being on the level) then we have some interesting things to tackle: one is the amount of tension between the White House and the uniformed military over the issue of Iran and other things- but that tension is a story that usually get glossed over. Hersh provides some details, and, as expected, it's what you'd fear.
My one (one of many) dislikes about the current administration is the power-grabbing kick they're on. They hailed Bush as a new conservative, the culmination of what Reagen began and made it no secret that they intended to right what they saw as the imbalance in power that arose after Watergate. Watergate weakened the executive, Reagen revived it and Bush wanted to bring its power back. Problem is he went way, way too far and Congress has been criminally negligent in not reining him in. Gitmo would be the first example (the Supreme Court decision has put the kybosh on that) in the face of not wanting to give terrorists POW status and not wanting to treat them like normal criminals, the Bush Administration essentially made shit up, just because it could.
Second would be the scandal at DOJ right now. This, to me is a far more censurable offense than anything to do with Iraq. And Nancy Pelosi should pull her head out of her ass and do something about this. Or Leahy or someone. Someone should grow a spine and slap the executive around HARD on this one. The DOJ NEEDS to be an independent agency that, if necessary can stand up to the President if it has too. Its impartiality and independence has to be absolutely sacrosanct. The fact that evidence is pretty much there that the White House and former top officials in DOJ made hiring decisions based on political leanings and not on merit is a slap at the independence and impartiality of the agency and it undermines it. The fact that Democrats aren't doing anything about that signals to me that they don't want to. The real danger is, given the general trust-worthiness of our political class (note sarcasm) is that now that the Bush Administration has helpfully set the precedent, Democratic Administrations in the future can do the exact same thing and point out the precedent. The DOJ then becomes a potential partisan football. Just what we need.
And now, Hersh hints at a third over-reach and that's with military strategy in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. And once again, it seems as if the general lack of knowledge about the world and eagerness to get caught in pre-conceived notions could spell disaster for us, yet again. Conservatives may rightly point out reports that Iraq is slowly but surely heading in the right direction (the MSM under-reports this and I've always taken the view that one needs to look at the big picture- cries of total chaos, when studied carefully revealed that violence was confined to certain areas of Iraq, like the Sunni Triangle, while life teetered on in the rest of the country.) but it seems as if the Bush Administration wants to take strategies that worked in areas like Waziristan and apply them to a whole country. And they want to take ethnic tensions and use them to undermine the Iranian government. The military, of course, thinks this is stupid and tension results. The White House makes the facts, it seems, and the military have to make events adhere to the facts.
Not a pretty picture. I'm not a fan of military action against Iran unless it becomes absolutely necessary- and forgive me for not trusting the Bush Administration to decide when it is absolutely necessary. The wrong kind of military action at the wrong time could lead to immense blowback that could have generational consequences for American policy in the region. There are tensions in Iran (Kenneth Pollack's The Persian Puzzle is a great read if you're looking for the low-down on Iran. I highly reccomend it.) but I think they're of a political and generational nature more than an ethnic one. Sure, Kurds in Iran may agitate for independence, same with the Azeri minorities- but Iran has been a cohesive entity for centuries. It wasn't just drawn out by some overpaid, pompous British official after World War One. Playing the ethnic card will not work. If we must undermine, we have to embolden the opposition and moderate clerics- and when the Bush Administration public sneered at the reform movement in the last Iranian Presidential Election, it's no wonder we ended up with Ahmadinejad and company. Rafsanjani and Khatmai may not have been the greatest friends to America, but one could maybe say that they were reasonable people (or what passes for reasonable anyway.) The present Iranian government? Not so much.
The democratic opposition needs to be emboldened in Iran. The Administration should stop playing ethnic games and start crafting a strategy that works. If anyone noticed, Ahmadinejad has been handed several defeats politically- Larijani (highly regarded somewhat moderate negotiator for the nuke thing) was made speaker of the Meglis- and they were irritated enough at the lack of economic progress at home to hold up Ahmadinejad's nominee for the oil ministry several times.
Iran could be easy. The Bush Administration, in pursuing idiotic, totally useless ethnically based strategies is playing the wrong game. Start co-opting the Meglis. Start exploiting the fact that there are moderates in Iran and there's a whole generation of very young people who don't remember the Shah, don't give a damn and just want to have a good time without these old guys in robes bringin' em down. Import some rock n'roll and take the time to craft an image of America as a bastion of freedom and prosperity.
That is the true task we face with Iran. Anywhere else, we end up fighting history more than anything else. The Iranians don't like the US Government and they don't trust the US Government. We need to go around their government and re-introduce ourselves to the people. Re-brand America. Work with the reform movement and start finding the right cracks in the regime to exploit. With Democratic (albeit flawed) institutions already in place, we only need to effect the removal of the Mullahs from political life in Iran to establish a democratic government. In effect, it would somewhat ironic if the Bush Administration recognized that the best Iranian policy they could pursue would be one encouraging the virtues of separation of church and state- or in this case, mosque and state.
If one assumes that Hersh is on the level (and he's got the rep for being on the level) then we have some interesting things to tackle: one is the amount of tension between the White House and the uniformed military over the issue of Iran and other things- but that tension is a story that usually get glossed over. Hersh provides some details, and, as expected, it's what you'd fear.
My one (one of many) dislikes about the current administration is the power-grabbing kick they're on. They hailed Bush as a new conservative, the culmination of what Reagen began and made it no secret that they intended to right what they saw as the imbalance in power that arose after Watergate. Watergate weakened the executive, Reagen revived it and Bush wanted to bring its power back. Problem is he went way, way too far and Congress has been criminally negligent in not reining him in. Gitmo would be the first example (the Supreme Court decision has put the kybosh on that) in the face of not wanting to give terrorists POW status and not wanting to treat them like normal criminals, the Bush Administration essentially made shit up, just because it could.
Second would be the scandal at DOJ right now. This, to me is a far more censurable offense than anything to do with Iraq. And Nancy Pelosi should pull her head out of her ass and do something about this. Or Leahy or someone. Someone should grow a spine and slap the executive around HARD on this one. The DOJ NEEDS to be an independent agency that, if necessary can stand up to the President if it has too. Its impartiality and independence has to be absolutely sacrosanct. The fact that evidence is pretty much there that the White House and former top officials in DOJ made hiring decisions based on political leanings and not on merit is a slap at the independence and impartiality of the agency and it undermines it. The fact that Democrats aren't doing anything about that signals to me that they don't want to. The real danger is, given the general trust-worthiness of our political class (note sarcasm) is that now that the Bush Administration has helpfully set the precedent, Democratic Administrations in the future can do the exact same thing and point out the precedent. The DOJ then becomes a potential partisan football. Just what we need.
And now, Hersh hints at a third over-reach and that's with military strategy in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. And once again, it seems as if the general lack of knowledge about the world and eagerness to get caught in pre-conceived notions could spell disaster for us, yet again. Conservatives may rightly point out reports that Iraq is slowly but surely heading in the right direction (the MSM under-reports this and I've always taken the view that one needs to look at the big picture- cries of total chaos, when studied carefully revealed that violence was confined to certain areas of Iraq, like the Sunni Triangle, while life teetered on in the rest of the country.) but it seems as if the Bush Administration wants to take strategies that worked in areas like Waziristan and apply them to a whole country. And they want to take ethnic tensions and use them to undermine the Iranian government. The military, of course, thinks this is stupid and tension results. The White House makes the facts, it seems, and the military have to make events adhere to the facts.
Not a pretty picture. I'm not a fan of military action against Iran unless it becomes absolutely necessary- and forgive me for not trusting the Bush Administration to decide when it is absolutely necessary. The wrong kind of military action at the wrong time could lead to immense blowback that could have generational consequences for American policy in the region. There are tensions in Iran (Kenneth Pollack's The Persian Puzzle is a great read if you're looking for the low-down on Iran. I highly reccomend it.) but I think they're of a political and generational nature more than an ethnic one. Sure, Kurds in Iran may agitate for independence, same with the Azeri minorities- but Iran has been a cohesive entity for centuries. It wasn't just drawn out by some overpaid, pompous British official after World War One. Playing the ethnic card will not work. If we must undermine, we have to embolden the opposition and moderate clerics- and when the Bush Administration public sneered at the reform movement in the last Iranian Presidential Election, it's no wonder we ended up with Ahmadinejad and company. Rafsanjani and Khatmai may not have been the greatest friends to America, but one could maybe say that they were reasonable people (or what passes for reasonable anyway.) The present Iranian government? Not so much.
The democratic opposition needs to be emboldened in Iran. The Administration should stop playing ethnic games and start crafting a strategy that works. If anyone noticed, Ahmadinejad has been handed several defeats politically- Larijani (highly regarded somewhat moderate negotiator for the nuke thing) was made speaker of the Meglis- and they were irritated enough at the lack of economic progress at home to hold up Ahmadinejad's nominee for the oil ministry several times.
Iran could be easy. The Bush Administration, in pursuing idiotic, totally useless ethnically based strategies is playing the wrong game. Start co-opting the Meglis. Start exploiting the fact that there are moderates in Iran and there's a whole generation of very young people who don't remember the Shah, don't give a damn and just want to have a good time without these old guys in robes bringin' em down. Import some rock n'roll and take the time to craft an image of America as a bastion of freedom and prosperity.
That is the true task we face with Iran. Anywhere else, we end up fighting history more than anything else. The Iranians don't like the US Government and they don't trust the US Government. We need to go around their government and re-introduce ourselves to the people. Re-brand America. Work with the reform movement and start finding the right cracks in the regime to exploit. With Democratic (albeit flawed) institutions already in place, we only need to effect the removal of the Mullahs from political life in Iran to establish a democratic government. In effect, it would somewhat ironic if the Bush Administration recognized that the best Iranian policy they could pursue would be one encouraging the virtues of separation of church and state- or in this case, mosque and state.
SPAIN!
The curse has broken and the baggage is forever gone! Spain has taken the European title from Germany 1-0 to win its first European title in 44 years- and they did it with one beautiful goal from Fernando Torres.
This was a nail-biter and a half. As always, when Germany is involved, you cannot ever count them out and they played this one through 90 and to the last second of injury time, but in the end, Spain just looked better, played better and won. Germany had flashes of brilliance, but after a slow start, Spain took off. They had the speed, they had the right touches and the played a hard game. Germany, on the other hand, never seemed to find its feet and got burned for it.
Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! If I like anything in soccer, its when the good teams have a breakthrough. Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands- all three have never won the World Cup and win European Championships few and far between, so when they step up and win the big one, it's an awesome thing! That'd be my one complaint about football: not enough teams win out- and although Brazil plays a good game, it gets kinda boring watching them win ALL THE TIME. So new blood is a good thing, that's what I say- and especially since Spain keeps fielding some good teams and choking, its awesome to see them break through and get that baggage out of the way once and for all.
Hopefully, they keep it up for the next two years and make a good run in the World Cup. First Europe, now the WORLD! VIVA ESPAÑA!
This was a nail-biter and a half. As always, when Germany is involved, you cannot ever count them out and they played this one through 90 and to the last second of injury time, but in the end, Spain just looked better, played better and won. Germany had flashes of brilliance, but after a slow start, Spain took off. They had the speed, they had the right touches and the played a hard game. Germany, on the other hand, never seemed to find its feet and got burned for it.
Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! If I like anything in soccer, its when the good teams have a breakthrough. Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands- all three have never won the World Cup and win European Championships few and far between, so when they step up and win the big one, it's an awesome thing! That'd be my one complaint about football: not enough teams win out- and although Brazil plays a good game, it gets kinda boring watching them win ALL THE TIME. So new blood is a good thing, that's what I say- and especially since Spain keeps fielding some good teams and choking, its awesome to see them break through and get that baggage out of the way once and for all.
Hopefully, they keep it up for the next two years and make a good run in the World Cup. First Europe, now the WORLD! VIVA ESPAÑA!
What's In A Middle Name?
So apparently some Obama supporters are adopting his middle name, 'Hussein' out of solidarity with him. Some give reasons that make sense to me- Republicans have been throwing the word 'Hussein' around with the unspoken implication that Obama is a Muslim fifth columnist who's going to hand the country over to the terrorists. That, in turn, fuels the rumors that Obama is a Muslim and promotes the nonsense that disguises what's important in this election.
That said: my initial reaction is that its kind of well, creepy. I know in the primaries a lot of people were turned off by the almost messianic rhetoric that some Obama supporters would spread. I liked Obama, I agreed with Obama, but I didn't think he was the second coming or the best thing since sliced bread. The whole 'taking his name' thing seems a little obsessive to me. I'll vote for him, but I like my middle name just fine thank you very much.
Plus, this could be spun in a very bad way. Given the propensity of people to buy into whatever rumors are floating around out there, who knows what some nutheads are going to assume.
That said: my initial reaction is that its kind of well, creepy. I know in the primaries a lot of people were turned off by the almost messianic rhetoric that some Obama supporters would spread. I liked Obama, I agreed with Obama, but I didn't think he was the second coming or the best thing since sliced bread. The whole 'taking his name' thing seems a little obsessive to me. I'll vote for him, but I like my middle name just fine thank you very much.
Plus, this could be spun in a very bad way. Given the propensity of people to buy into whatever rumors are floating around out there, who knows what some nutheads are going to assume.
This Is Bizarre
So I guess the Angels played the Dodgers last night- which isn't in and of itself unusual, but the Angels threw a no-hitter and still lost 1-0 to the Dodgers. This is only the fifth time in modern league history that its happened. Reading the article, I think the winning run was scored off an error, but it's still kind of cool.
On Immigration
The Star Tribune has a lengthy feature on the fallout from the raid on the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, IA and it lays bare some troubling trends when it comes to the mess that is immigration law in this country. The obvious thing one takes away from this article is a simple one: when workers operate outside U.S. law they are subject to abuses by employers- and it sounds like AP has had its share of abuses. Workers promised furnished apartments and payouts and getting nothing? Employers looking the other way and hiring people they knew to be illegals? Again, what's up with that?
400 people were rounded up in the raid and families were torn apart and the last I checked (and this article seems to confirm that) authorities aren't investigating the employers, just raiding and deporting the employees. That should stop right now.
Immigration is a tricky issue with me: I think the system is beyond broken and I'm not in favor of illegal immigrants getting amnesty. That's not because I think 'them there Mexicans should go home and stop takin' our jobs' it's because that my family had to jump through all seven circles of INS bureaucratic hell- we did it by the book and no one offered us amnesty. Illegals enter the country illegally and politicians trip over themselves trying to come up with Amnesty bills every decade or so- usually to try and curry favor with Hispanic voters in some very important election.
That said: who's going to do the jobs? Seriously now. I hate it when people bitch about 'immigrants taking our jobs' because I don't see them running down to the meat packing plant to get those jobs. I don't see them volunteering to be janitors and do other very thankless jobs at little or no money. Picking crops, working in meat packing plants, take your pick: the jobs don't pay well and they need to get done and there's a market of workers willing to do them. So why not let them? It's also worth noting that if a guest worker program is established, then these workers can get some protection of the law. They can get better wages and better conditions. Right now they can demand neither in the face of deportation.
A guest worker program is not without precedent. From 1942-1964, we had the bracero program, which was initiated during the war to provide manual labor for the agricultural and railroad sectors of the economy- it was a forerunner of the United Farm Workers organization and typically, troubles continue to this day: lawsuits were filed to recover deductions taken from paychecks by the Mexican and American governments- and, typically, they've gone nowhere.
Point is: guest worker programs have worked in this country before, they can do so again. And should! And more importantly, if structured correctly, they can provide a path to permanent residency and citizenship that many of these people desire. Jobs get done, crops get picked and the workers get the protection of the law that they deserve so they can get better pay and better conditions.
I think in the long term, sensible action on this side of the border, combined with sensible action on the other side of the border can produce something that everyone can live with. Mexico, historically speaking is still coming out of seven decades of one party rule that was horrible inefficient and corporatist in nature. It will take them awhile to get it out of their system.
And, having read this article- I think we need to start cracking down on worker abuse and employers who break the law in the name of getting cheap labor.
400 people were rounded up in the raid and families were torn apart and the last I checked (and this article seems to confirm that) authorities aren't investigating the employers, just raiding and deporting the employees. That should stop right now.
Immigration is a tricky issue with me: I think the system is beyond broken and I'm not in favor of illegal immigrants getting amnesty. That's not because I think 'them there Mexicans should go home and stop takin' our jobs' it's because that my family had to jump through all seven circles of INS bureaucratic hell- we did it by the book and no one offered us amnesty. Illegals enter the country illegally and politicians trip over themselves trying to come up with Amnesty bills every decade or so- usually to try and curry favor with Hispanic voters in some very important election.
That said: who's going to do the jobs? Seriously now. I hate it when people bitch about 'immigrants taking our jobs' because I don't see them running down to the meat packing plant to get those jobs. I don't see them volunteering to be janitors and do other very thankless jobs at little or no money. Picking crops, working in meat packing plants, take your pick: the jobs don't pay well and they need to get done and there's a market of workers willing to do them. So why not let them? It's also worth noting that if a guest worker program is established, then these workers can get some protection of the law. They can get better wages and better conditions. Right now they can demand neither in the face of deportation.
A guest worker program is not without precedent. From 1942-1964, we had the bracero program, which was initiated during the war to provide manual labor for the agricultural and railroad sectors of the economy- it was a forerunner of the United Farm Workers organization and typically, troubles continue to this day: lawsuits were filed to recover deductions taken from paychecks by the Mexican and American governments- and, typically, they've gone nowhere.
Point is: guest worker programs have worked in this country before, they can do so again. And should! And more importantly, if structured correctly, they can provide a path to permanent residency and citizenship that many of these people desire. Jobs get done, crops get picked and the workers get the protection of the law that they deserve so they can get better pay and better conditions.
I think in the long term, sensible action on this side of the border, combined with sensible action on the other side of the border can produce something that everyone can live with. Mexico, historically speaking is still coming out of seven decades of one party rule that was horrible inefficient and corporatist in nature. It will take them awhile to get it out of their system.
And, having read this article- I think we need to start cracking down on worker abuse and employers who break the law in the name of getting cheap labor.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Nerd Alert! Nerd Alert!
TrekFest in Riverside was this weekend! And they've unveiled a new Trek Museum! It's like a haven of geek-i-ness in Iowa! Though, Trekker that I am, I have to say with some shame that in all my years in Iowa City, I never once went to Trek Fest. I feel like I've let the side down a little bit, so I guess there's nothing for it but to get every single season of Star Trek: The Next Generation off of Netflix and watch them. Ali will probably strangle me, but it'd be a nice nerd-out.
To be safe, I'd probably save them for when she has a girls weekend now and again.
P.S. For the uninformed: Riverside, IA is about twenty minutes or so south of Iowa City and has gained a certain amount of fame because when James T. Kirk let slip in Star Trek IV that he was from Iowa, Riverside wrote the Gene Roddenberry and asked for the honor of being his future birthplace. Roddenberry said yes, so the town is now the future birthplace of Captain James T. Kirk. A sort of retroactive historical attraction. Or something complicated like that.
To be safe, I'd probably save them for when she has a girls weekend now and again.
P.S. For the uninformed: Riverside, IA is about twenty minutes or so south of Iowa City and has gained a certain amount of fame because when James T. Kirk let slip in Star Trek IV that he was from Iowa, Riverside wrote the Gene Roddenberry and asked for the honor of being his future birthplace. Roddenberry said yes, so the town is now the future birthplace of Captain James T. Kirk. A sort of retroactive historical attraction. Or something complicated like that.
Smoking Bans
Iowa is prepping for a smoking ban which is going to go into force this Tuesday- and bar owners aren't thrilled. There's a preview from the Press-Citizen in Iowa City and they're predicting that 'townie' bars are going to be the ones that are hit hardest. There's the usual griping from smokers- but I have to say that as a long-time albeit now ex-patriate of Iowa City, I fret a bit about the cool bars I like, to whit:
(And feel free to frequent some of these bars if you ever happen to be in the I.C., you won't regret it.)
1. The Deadwood: (Dubuque St., across from Prairie Lights and Mickey's) Described to me as 'a grad student bar' the Deadwood became a favorite from the very first time I went in there. Don't get me wrong: the haze of cigarette smoke wasn't appealing, but the Deadwood was dark. People jammed out to music and had conversations and smoked tons of cigarettes. It had the kind of dark, cynical atmosphere one would expect from 'a grad student bar.'
2. The Foxhead: A bar that might straddle the line between 'downtown' and 'townie' bar, it's a favorite haunt for those that like a chill place to hang out. It's got character, creaky wooden floors, wooden boothes that have been carved into for decades now- and it has Pabst on tap. Plus an awesome jukebox with a great selection of music. (Market St, across from Dirty John's.)
3. Dublin Underground: Right next to Pizza on Dubuque, you go downstairs instead of up and the magic happens. A tiny, basement bar it can cramped in a hurry, but if you luck out on a chill night,you can get a booth, grab some Guiness, scope out the ragged paperbacks that line the walls and maybe play a sticky, alcohol soak, ancient game of Monopoly, Pictionary or Risk. Has tons of character.
4. George's: A writer bar. No, seriously- it's just up Market St. from The Foxhead and it's small, out of the way and apparently serves the best burgers in town. Plus I believe that Raymond Carver (noted short story author and writer) used to drink there. So that's some Writer's Workshop trivia for you.
5. Quinton's: I like Quinton's. The food is good (it's on Washington, next to the Java House downtown), the atmosphere is kickin' and the music is always good. (Ranges from classic rock, to mellower new stuff, to random stuff you haven't heard since junior high.) Chill bar, but it's a downtown bar. But it's a downtown bar you can live with, if conversation and chillage instead of bumpage and grindage is what you're after.
So there you have it. Five 'must-go-to' bars in Iowa City, that hopefully won't get screwed by the smoking ban too much. I've pondered on the subject before, and I've come down on the side of public health, but reluctantly. I don't like the precedent of the government making laws against the dumb choices people make sometimes. It's not going to make smokers quit any faster and the government shouldn't be about controlling people's stupidity. Of course, that's a debate in American politics that's older than time. The old 'trust the people' or 'why on earth would you do something as crazy as trusting the people' debate. I tend to take the view that government should help the people that need the help and leave everyone else alone. (Somewhat libertarian of me.) But the smoking risks to public health are well known and I can't justify forcing non-smokers to inhale cigarette smoke just because smokers can't be bothered to quit.
People might say, well they can just get different jobs- but they might not be able to do that. The economy sucks and the middle class ain't what it used to be- so reluctantly, even though it jibes against every principle I have, I'd have to reluctantly say yes to smoking bans. As long as they don't start outlawing smoking outside.
(And feel free to frequent some of these bars if you ever happen to be in the I.C., you won't regret it.)
1. The Deadwood: (Dubuque St., across from Prairie Lights and Mickey's) Described to me as 'a grad student bar' the Deadwood became a favorite from the very first time I went in there. Don't get me wrong: the haze of cigarette smoke wasn't appealing, but the Deadwood was dark. People jammed out to music and had conversations and smoked tons of cigarettes. It had the kind of dark, cynical atmosphere one would expect from 'a grad student bar.'
2. The Foxhead: A bar that might straddle the line between 'downtown' and 'townie' bar, it's a favorite haunt for those that like a chill place to hang out. It's got character, creaky wooden floors, wooden boothes that have been carved into for decades now- and it has Pabst on tap. Plus an awesome jukebox with a great selection of music. (Market St, across from Dirty John's.)
3. Dublin Underground: Right next to Pizza on Dubuque, you go downstairs instead of up and the magic happens. A tiny, basement bar it can cramped in a hurry, but if you luck out on a chill night,you can get a booth, grab some Guiness, scope out the ragged paperbacks that line the walls and maybe play a sticky, alcohol soak, ancient game of Monopoly, Pictionary or Risk. Has tons of character.
4. George's: A writer bar. No, seriously- it's just up Market St. from The Foxhead and it's small, out of the way and apparently serves the best burgers in town. Plus I believe that Raymond Carver (noted short story author and writer) used to drink there. So that's some Writer's Workshop trivia for you.
5. Quinton's: I like Quinton's. The food is good (it's on Washington, next to the Java House downtown), the atmosphere is kickin' and the music is always good. (Ranges from classic rock, to mellower new stuff, to random stuff you haven't heard since junior high.) Chill bar, but it's a downtown bar. But it's a downtown bar you can live with, if conversation and chillage instead of bumpage and grindage is what you're after.
So there you have it. Five 'must-go-to' bars in Iowa City, that hopefully won't get screwed by the smoking ban too much. I've pondered on the subject before, and I've come down on the side of public health, but reluctantly. I don't like the precedent of the government making laws against the dumb choices people make sometimes. It's not going to make smokers quit any faster and the government shouldn't be about controlling people's stupidity. Of course, that's a debate in American politics that's older than time. The old 'trust the people' or 'why on earth would you do something as crazy as trusting the people' debate. I tend to take the view that government should help the people that need the help and leave everyone else alone. (Somewhat libertarian of me.) But the smoking risks to public health are well known and I can't justify forcing non-smokers to inhale cigarette smoke just because smokers can't be bothered to quit.
People might say, well they can just get different jobs- but they might not be able to do that. The economy sucks and the middle class ain't what it used to be- so reluctantly, even though it jibes against every principle I have, I'd have to reluctantly say yes to smoking bans. As long as they don't start outlawing smoking outside.
Zimbabwe and Equality
Well, there's this video of a Mugabe apologist who's on the NYC City Council. Instapundit had the link earlier, but I thought I'd chime in and add that to be frank, this guy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground- but he illustrates the difficulties of effective post-colonial/post-revolutionary government quite nicely.
Mugabe is a dictatorial prick who blew what legacy he had by overthrowing the rule of law in Zimbabwe and rigging elections, crushing the opposition and generally turning Zimbabwe into a pit of despair. Whoever this guy is, he rails against Tutu and Mandela for 'allowing the whites to keep the land.' Fair enough. But when Mugabe started handing out the land willy-nilly to his supporters, his farming economy collapsed and now Zimbabwe can't feed itself.
Land re-distribution is a tricky thing and I don't think it's ever been done right in history. Ever. Usually it's code for massive famine and total societal chaos as we see in the case of Zimbabwe- yet, it's a hard line to tread. With 80-90% of the wealth in the hands of very few (and in the case of Africa, probably white people) how does one build a democracy with that fundamental inequality? How? The maddening thing is that seeking to redress the problem through quasi-socialist ideas of making everyone equal only makes everyone equally poor. Egalitarianism is somewhat necessary in a democratic society, true- but it's equality of opportunity, not as socialists usually make it, a materialist conception of equality. That's true opportunity: when everyone born at any given time or socio-economic status in a democratic society has an equal shot at moving up and being a success or being a failure.
Have we ever achieved that? I doubt it. But if we must work towards egalitarianism of some kind, I'd rather it be that. (And if you think about it- the idea cuts across race and gender divides as well. We'd want EVERYONE to have a fair shot. So that means socio-economic conditions in the inner cities or border towns would have to tackled and barriers to gender equality would have to be knocked down. Everyone wins.)
(Also, to be fair, the headline from HotAir said that the guy was saying that 'criticism of Mugabe is racist.' When watched, the guy just rants about Mugabe doing what Mandela and Tutu wouldn't and why that's why white people dig Mandela. I guess the implication is that criticism of Mugabe is racist, but its not said directly.)
Mugabe is a dictatorial prick who blew what legacy he had by overthrowing the rule of law in Zimbabwe and rigging elections, crushing the opposition and generally turning Zimbabwe into a pit of despair. Whoever this guy is, he rails against Tutu and Mandela for 'allowing the whites to keep the land.' Fair enough. But when Mugabe started handing out the land willy-nilly to his supporters, his farming economy collapsed and now Zimbabwe can't feed itself.
Land re-distribution is a tricky thing and I don't think it's ever been done right in history. Ever. Usually it's code for massive famine and total societal chaos as we see in the case of Zimbabwe- yet, it's a hard line to tread. With 80-90% of the wealth in the hands of very few (and in the case of Africa, probably white people) how does one build a democracy with that fundamental inequality? How? The maddening thing is that seeking to redress the problem through quasi-socialist ideas of making everyone equal only makes everyone equally poor. Egalitarianism is somewhat necessary in a democratic society, true- but it's equality of opportunity, not as socialists usually make it, a materialist conception of equality. That's true opportunity: when everyone born at any given time or socio-economic status in a democratic society has an equal shot at moving up and being a success or being a failure.
Have we ever achieved that? I doubt it. But if we must work towards egalitarianism of some kind, I'd rather it be that. (And if you think about it- the idea cuts across race and gender divides as well. We'd want EVERYONE to have a fair shot. So that means socio-economic conditions in the inner cities or border towns would have to tackled and barriers to gender equality would have to be knocked down. Everyone wins.)
(Also, to be fair, the headline from HotAir said that the guy was saying that 'criticism of Mugabe is racist.' When watched, the guy just rants about Mugabe doing what Mandela and Tutu wouldn't and why that's why white people dig Mandela. I guess the implication is that criticism of Mugabe is racist, but its not said directly.)
Canadia Update
Via Instapundit, an update on the Canadian Human Rights Commission, here.
Again, to me this issue is a simple one: we cannot compromise free speech. Ever. This absolutism needs to be tempered with some sensible pragmatism as well. Just because one has the right to speech, doesn't mean one has the right to a megaphone- but this case from Canada isn't about megaphones, it's about hate speech. Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of hateful, racist speech, but I don't think you can legislate against it either. Like it or not, racists may be really, really dumb in your eyes, but you can stop them thinking what they think- no one can- and that includes giving voice to thought, unfortunately.
You can probably tie this in with the attempts to bring back the media fairness doctrine on the part of the Democrats in Congress- (I posted my disapproval of this some days back) the media fairness doctrine would force radio stations to give equal time to opposing points of view- similar to what the CIC is asking of the McClean's Magazine in the Canadian case. On the part of Democrats, this is extremely foolish: such a doctrine can cut both ways- and one can almost predict the howls of rage from liberal pundits and networks when they're forced to bring conservatives on in the name of equal time. Likewise, prosecutions and demands for equal time in the name of 'anti-Muslim' speech can be spun both ways. Instapundit, in his wisdom has the right idea:
Indeed. One would like to hear the reaction of the Canadian Islamic Congress if some extreme cleric spouts off against the immorality of western woman and the pros and cons of violent jihad. Surely under the standards the CHRC has that would qualify as hate speech. Though it's funny how when it comes political correctness, the policing never goes both ways. Only one way- the way the PC police find to be 'the correct way.'
I'm going to have save this until fall, but it'd be interesting to bounce this off a Women's Studies class: what is the feminist reaction to oppression of women in the Muslim world? And why is it so curiously muted? (At least in mainstream eyes. I've discovered that when one delves into feminism with set pre-conceptions about what's out there and what's not, one usually discovers that there's quite a lot you haven't heard about.) I've got to think there's got to be some discomfort sharing similar ideological space to Bush and the neo-cons. (Bush and Company thinking the liberation of the Middle East is a good thing, feminists thinking liberating women from gross oppression being a good thing.)
Definately going to have to do some digging on that.
Again, to me this issue is a simple one: we cannot compromise free speech. Ever. This absolutism needs to be tempered with some sensible pragmatism as well. Just because one has the right to speech, doesn't mean one has the right to a megaphone- but this case from Canada isn't about megaphones, it's about hate speech. Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of hateful, racist speech, but I don't think you can legislate against it either. Like it or not, racists may be really, really dumb in your eyes, but you can stop them thinking what they think- no one can- and that includes giving voice to thought, unfortunately.
You can probably tie this in with the attempts to bring back the media fairness doctrine on the part of the Democrats in Congress- (I posted my disapproval of this some days back) the media fairness doctrine would force radio stations to give equal time to opposing points of view- similar to what the CIC is asking of the McClean's Magazine in the Canadian case. On the part of Democrats, this is extremely foolish: such a doctrine can cut both ways- and one can almost predict the howls of rage from liberal pundits and networks when they're forced to bring conservatives on in the name of equal time. Likewise, prosecutions and demands for equal time in the name of 'anti-Muslim' speech can be spun both ways. Instapundit, in his wisdom has the right idea:
Yes, now is not the time to slack off. I also think it would be a good time for Canadians to flood the HRCs with complaints about racist and sexist speech from Muslim clerics, Womyn's activists, and the like. God knows there's plenty of material to work with
Indeed. One would like to hear the reaction of the Canadian Islamic Congress if some extreme cleric spouts off against the immorality of western woman and the pros and cons of violent jihad. Surely under the standards the CHRC has that would qualify as hate speech. Though it's funny how when it comes political correctness, the policing never goes both ways. Only one way- the way the PC police find to be 'the correct way.'
I'm going to have save this until fall, but it'd be interesting to bounce this off a Women's Studies class: what is the feminist reaction to oppression of women in the Muslim world? And why is it so curiously muted? (At least in mainstream eyes. I've discovered that when one delves into feminism with set pre-conceptions about what's out there and what's not, one usually discovers that there's quite a lot you haven't heard about.) I've got to think there's got to be some discomfort sharing similar ideological space to Bush and the neo-cons. (Bush and Company thinking the liberation of the Middle East is a good thing, feminists thinking liberating women from gross oppression being a good thing.)
Definately going to have to do some digging on that.
Nerd Rant I: History
This past week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC ban on handguns was unconstitutional. That, in and of itself wasn't really that big of a deal. Supreme Court rules on guns, said the headlines, more at 11. The blogs on the internet were all over it, but the vast majority of people missed the boat- which is kind of sad, but it's a truth of American society today: the Supreme Court is one of the most overlooked branches of our government.
Well, it's pretty much the most overlooked branch of our government. I think it has something to do with the fact that, sensibly, the Supreme Court doesn't allow cameras in their chambers. There's no drama. There's no footage to show on Nancy Grace or Court TV- and so, the judiciary seems a little remote to a lot of Americans. Naturally, when the Supreme Court rules on something that pisses people off, cries of that tiresome old chestnut 'judicial activism' ring to the rafters (and isn't it funny how those cries tend to come from different quarters depending on who's pissed off?)
But people seemed to have missed the boat this week. The law blogs (Volokh, Scotus, Althouse and company) offered enough analysis to send even the most dedicated law nerd into a coma. But the implications seemed to have been lost on a lot of people: history happened this week. HISTORY. An actual watershed moment in American history- probably the most important Supreme Court case of my lifetime and nobody noticed.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. But that wasn't the big deal. Rather it was what the Supreme Court clarified in that ruling. Let's be clear- the Second Amendment says this:
And the Supreme Court said for the first time ever that individuals have the right to bear arms. Individuals. For the FIRST TIME EVER. That may not seem like a big deal, because people probably assumed that they had an individual right to bear arms all along, but if you read the Amendment that's not clear at all. And now it is.
History made. People should notice now and again. It doesn't happen all that often.
Well, it's pretty much the most overlooked branch of our government. I think it has something to do with the fact that, sensibly, the Supreme Court doesn't allow cameras in their chambers. There's no drama. There's no footage to show on Nancy Grace or Court TV- and so, the judiciary seems a little remote to a lot of Americans. Naturally, when the Supreme Court rules on something that pisses people off, cries of that tiresome old chestnut 'judicial activism' ring to the rafters (and isn't it funny how those cries tend to come from different quarters depending on who's pissed off?)
But people seemed to have missed the boat this week. The law blogs (Volokh, Scotus, Althouse and company) offered enough analysis to send even the most dedicated law nerd into a coma. But the implications seemed to have been lost on a lot of people: history happened this week. HISTORY. An actual watershed moment in American history- probably the most important Supreme Court case of my lifetime and nobody noticed.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. But that wasn't the big deal. Rather it was what the Supreme Court clarified in that ruling. Let's be clear- the Second Amendment says this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And the Supreme Court said for the first time ever that individuals have the right to bear arms. Individuals. For the FIRST TIME EVER. That may not seem like a big deal, because people probably assumed that they had an individual right to bear arms all along, but if you read the Amendment that's not clear at all. And now it is.
History made. People should notice now and again. It doesn't happen all that often.
Title IX
Via Feministing, an belated commentary on the 36th Anniversary of Title IX which was this month. I also saw a really good documentary randomly on ESPN-2 about it as well and to be frank, it's beyond awesome. My knowledge of Title IX was basically what everyone else's is: getting women access to sports at a collegiate level. That's what I thought it was- but- the interesting thing is all the other stuff its supposed to ensure access too:
That's very cool. I guess you learn something new every day. For the 'Godmother of Title IX' check out Bernice Sandler's website, here.
Title IX has been largely associated with the rights of girls and women's to participate in sports in school, but most don't know there's 9 other issue areas that are really important:
* Access to Higher Education
* Career Education
* Education of Pregnant and Parenting Teens
* Employment
* Learning Environment
* Math & Science
* Sexual Harassment
* Standardized Testing
* Technology
That's very cool. I guess you learn something new every day. For the 'Godmother of Title IX' check out Bernice Sandler's website, here.
In Celebrity Sex Tape News...
25 seconds is all the world can get for now- because a Judge has halted the release of Verne Troyer (yes, Mini-Me from Austin Powers) sex tape. Troyer has sued the website and the porn producers for $20 million in damages.
Mini-Me has a sex tape? The mind boggles.
But- it's also worth noting that in the occasional breakouts of celebrity sex tapes one has to ask the obvious question: if you don't want to be humiliated by a sex tape- then why tape yourself having sex?
Mini-Me has a sex tape? The mind boggles.
But- it's also worth noting that in the occasional breakouts of celebrity sex tapes one has to ask the obvious question: if you don't want to be humiliated by a sex tape- then why tape yourself having sex?
Stilts!
Per the Star Tribune this morning, a 24 year old man had finished walking 830 miles on stilts across the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to raise awareness for cerebral palsy- and he has mild cerebral palsy himself.
First of all: stilts are cool. Like unicycles, pogo sticks and skydiving, stilts have always been something I'd like to try. I remember when they were expanding the Museum of Art and mudding the drywall, the workers would hop around on these bad-ass stilts so they could reach the higher areas of the wall. Stilts are bad-ass.
Second of all: I love it when people do random things to raise awareness for good causes. People walk across the country, people get in a canoe and journey a thousand miles for something. It's awesome. It seems so small, so random and so crazy and yet, the fact they do something small and random means that they get the media attention for the cause they want to promote. A bake-sale for cerebral palsy? Not so much. But if you wake up one morning and decide to walk across the UP of Michigan on stilts- that might get some notice.
First of all: stilts are cool. Like unicycles, pogo sticks and skydiving, stilts have always been something I'd like to try. I remember when they were expanding the Museum of Art and mudding the drywall, the workers would hop around on these bad-ass stilts so they could reach the higher areas of the wall. Stilts are bad-ass.
Second of all: I love it when people do random things to raise awareness for good causes. People walk across the country, people get in a canoe and journey a thousand miles for something. It's awesome. It seems so small, so random and so crazy and yet, the fact they do something small and random means that they get the media attention for the cause they want to promote. A bake-sale for cerebral palsy? Not so much. But if you wake up one morning and decide to walk across the UP of Michigan on stilts- that might get some notice.
The Weirdness of 10,000 B.C.
So Ali picked up two movies from RedBox last night: Fool's Gold and 10,000 BC. Fool's Gold was an entirely forgettable excuse to have Matthew McConaughey run around without his shirt on and 10,000 BC was more unintentionally funny than anything else.
Supposedly the story of 'the first hero' the movie, directly by Roland Emmerich bore a strange resemblance to Stargate. Seriously. The basic plot is as follows: people travel a long way to save slaves from building a pyramid, fight really weird alien creatures and kill a supposed God who may or may not be an alien and the hot girl gets killed and brought back to life.
Sound familiar? Add an alien stargate, Kurt Russell and James Spader and you have Stargate. Seriously.
Plus, the geography of 10,000 BC is whacked out. (They go from tundra to savanna to desert pretty quickly) and I didn't know they had domesticated horses in 10,000 BC. Or maps. Or pretty advanced looking ships. Or even pyramids for that matter.
Best part though: there's a character called Tic-Tic who looks like Britney Spears' tabloid ex, Adnan Ghalib. (Really!) And apparently, Omar Sharif was somewhere in the movie, though damned if I know where.
In general: lame movie. Fun to make fun of if you're bored- but lame. Just go watch Stargate.
Supposedly the story of 'the first hero' the movie, directly by Roland Emmerich bore a strange resemblance to Stargate. Seriously. The basic plot is as follows: people travel a long way to save slaves from building a pyramid, fight really weird alien creatures and kill a supposed God who may or may not be an alien and the hot girl gets killed and brought back to life.
Sound familiar? Add an alien stargate, Kurt Russell and James Spader and you have Stargate. Seriously.
Plus, the geography of 10,000 BC is whacked out. (They go from tundra to savanna to desert pretty quickly) and I didn't know they had domesticated horses in 10,000 BC. Or maps. Or pretty advanced looking ships. Or even pyramids for that matter.
Best part though: there's a character called Tic-Tic who looks like Britney Spears' tabloid ex, Adnan Ghalib. (Really!) And apparently, Omar Sharif was somewhere in the movie, though damned if I know where.
In general: lame movie. Fun to make fun of if you're bored- but lame. Just go watch Stargate.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Big Guns
As expected, the Heller decision was announced today and, as expected it was ground-breaking, history making and everything in between. The DC handgun was struck down and the court declared for the first time EVER that individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms. The 5-4 vote also opens the doors for the NRA to challenge any number of gun restrictions- which they've already signalled they intend to do.
What it boils down to is this: if you're pro-gun, this is the best day EVER. If you're not pro-gun, this isn't your day. I myself have come a long way on guns- I think they're necessary for the defense of a free society. An armed citizenry being less likely to be screwed with by a government or so the theory goes. I tend to think, however, that some small sensible restrictions are necessary. The Gun Show Loophole is some major bullshit and I think you should be 18 and have to wait 5 days before you get a gun. They make you jump through all kinds of hoops to drive a car in this country, so why not to get a gun? Makes sense to me.
The aftermath has already begun- some legal analysis here and here, round-ups and reactions here, and here.
What it boils down to is this: if you're pro-gun, this is the best day EVER. If you're not pro-gun, this isn't your day. I myself have come a long way on guns- I think they're necessary for the defense of a free society. An armed citizenry being less likely to be screwed with by a government or so the theory goes. I tend to think, however, that some small sensible restrictions are necessary. The Gun Show Loophole is some major bullshit and I think you should be 18 and have to wait 5 days before you get a gun. They make you jump through all kinds of hoops to drive a car in this country, so why not to get a gun? Makes sense to me.
The aftermath has already begun- some legal analysis here and here, round-ups and reactions here, and here.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
What To Do With Robert Mugabe?
The crisis in Zimbabwe continues to deepen. Nelson Mandela has weighed in, condemning the violence. Instapundit has been great on this all day- linking to articles by Richard Fernandez posing the interesting question: 'What if nobody recognized Robert Mugabe?'
Mugabe has been stripped of his knighthood.
Neighboring countries are urging a postponement to the elections. (And Zimbabweans are asking for help)
And TNR has a question for the candidates...
Big, big kudos to Instapundit for following this story. As per usual, the Mainstream Media is sort of ignoring this story (due to an ridiculous lack of coverage and understanding that the media has of African politics and events in general.) And, whether you think Zimbabwe is totally irrelevant to the world, it's an important story. Hope For the Future Leader-Gone-Dictator oppressing his people. Hope for Zimbabwe, hope for better leaders in Africa, hope for Africa in general. It's a story that isn't getting enough attention.
Mugabe has been stripped of his knighthood.
Neighboring countries are urging a postponement to the elections. (And Zimbabweans are asking for help)
And TNR has a question for the candidates...
Big, big kudos to Instapundit for following this story. As per usual, the Mainstream Media is sort of ignoring this story (due to an ridiculous lack of coverage and understanding that the media has of African politics and events in general.) And, whether you think Zimbabwe is totally irrelevant to the world, it's an important story. Hope For the Future Leader-Gone-Dictator oppressing his people. Hope for Zimbabwe, hope for better leaders in Africa, hope for Africa in general. It's a story that isn't getting enough attention.
How Wild Can They Get?
Dubai is planning a moving skyscraper. Yep. The floors are gonna rotate on this one.
See for yourselves here.
See for yourselves here.
Big Day Tomorrow
If you have a day off tomorrow and are really, really, really bored (or if you're a political/law buff) then keep your eyes peeled to the SCOTUSBlog, because there's a doozy of a decision expected to be handed down tomorrow.
District of Columbia vs. Heller is expected to be the first major ruling on the Second Amendment in quite a few decades and could re-shape the whole tiresome 'right to bear arms' vs. 'public safety' debate quite profoundly. Heller is challenging D.C.'s long-standing ban on handguns and the case has the potential to clarify once and for all if the Second Amendment accords individuals the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment says this:
And that whole bit about a well regulated Militia has been what's kept the pot boiling for I don't know how long now. Gun control advocates say: 'well we have a militia, it's called the National Guard.' Pro-gun people say: 'only Americans can defend America from the potential abuses of government. It's supposed to be a citizen militia you liberal weenie.' (That last part was embellished a bit.) So- if the Supremes (and yes, I call them the Supremes, because the image of Antonin Scalia and company as back-up singers for Diana Ross is simultaneously horrifying AND hilarious) rule the way everyone thinks they're going to tomorrow then it will be a HUGE deal.
So like I said. Stay tuned. (Because not a lot of people watch the Supreme Court- or not enough do! We care about the President and Congress because they're all over the TV, but the Supreme Court flies under the radar a bit- and it STILL matters. A LOT.)
District of Columbia vs. Heller is expected to be the first major ruling on the Second Amendment in quite a few decades and could re-shape the whole tiresome 'right to bear arms' vs. 'public safety' debate quite profoundly. Heller is challenging D.C.'s long-standing ban on handguns and the case has the potential to clarify once and for all if the Second Amendment accords individuals the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment says this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And that whole bit about a well regulated Militia has been what's kept the pot boiling for I don't know how long now. Gun control advocates say: 'well we have a militia, it's called the National Guard.' Pro-gun people say: 'only Americans can defend America from the potential abuses of government. It's supposed to be a citizen militia you liberal weenie.' (That last part was embellished a bit.) So- if the Supremes (and yes, I call them the Supremes, because the image of Antonin Scalia and company as back-up singers for Diana Ross is simultaneously horrifying AND hilarious) rule the way everyone thinks they're going to tomorrow then it will be a HUGE deal.
So like I said. Stay tuned. (Because not a lot of people watch the Supreme Court- or not enough do! We care about the President and Congress because they're all over the TV, but the Supreme Court flies under the radar a bit- and it STILL matters. A LOT.)
Have You Ever Wondered...
what happened to Lorena Bobbit? Perez Hilton apparently does. And so does, for reasons passing understand, CBS' The Early Show. If you care, check this out.
And now, she's running a foundation to help victims of domestic abuse. Wow. He's doing porn. She's helping victims of domestic violence. Hmmmmm... who came out ahead here?
And now, she's running a foundation to help victims of domestic abuse. Wow. He's doing porn. She's helping victims of domestic violence. Hmmmmm... who came out ahead here?
The oPod.
It was probably inevitable that someone would get this story and the parsing would begin shortly thereafter, but the Telegraph has the goods on the burning question that everyone is dying to find an answer for:
What's on Barack Obama's iPod?
I tend to agree with Althouse with the notion that this is a remarkably crafted iPod. You have all the greatest hits for a wide variety of music- about the only genre missing is country music- and I agree with Althouse in that the one genuinely interesting pick is probably Earth, Wind and Fire.
Personally, I think it's an iPod. Why does every single aspect of a candidate's life have to be so damn scripted? Why can't we have a single moment of truth about what someone really likes musically- and why can't people just let be. Not everyone has the same taste in music, so for the love of pete, just deal. I make no apologies for what's on my iPod and I certainly wouldn't censor myself if I was running for office. Of the 3,384 songs on my iPod right now, I can't say I'd want to delete a single one.
OK, some of them are pretty weird- casualties of my downloading specific things to put on CDs for people (Beer for My Horses by Toby Keith, for instance) and some are just songs I genuinely like. (Yes, I liked Asyln. So sue me. It was a catchy song.)
So if I was in Obama's shoes, I'd probably gleefully leak to the press my love of punk: The Clash, The Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedys, Rancid, Green Day- funk: P-Funk, George Clinton, Curtis Mayfield, Coldplay, Genesis and Fall Out Boy. Give people a chance to really parse my musical taste and not just construct a carefully made iPod so as not to offend people by saying things like 'hardcore gangsta rap just isn't my thing.'
What's on Barack Obama's iPod?
I tend to agree with Althouse with the notion that this is a remarkably crafted iPod. You have all the greatest hits for a wide variety of music- about the only genre missing is country music- and I agree with Althouse in that the one genuinely interesting pick is probably Earth, Wind and Fire.
Personally, I think it's an iPod. Why does every single aspect of a candidate's life have to be so damn scripted? Why can't we have a single moment of truth about what someone really likes musically- and why can't people just let be. Not everyone has the same taste in music, so for the love of pete, just deal. I make no apologies for what's on my iPod and I certainly wouldn't censor myself if I was running for office. Of the 3,384 songs on my iPod right now, I can't say I'd want to delete a single one.
OK, some of them are pretty weird- casualties of my downloading specific things to put on CDs for people (Beer for My Horses by Toby Keith, for instance) and some are just songs I genuinely like. (Yes, I liked Asyln. So sue me. It was a catchy song.)
So if I was in Obama's shoes, I'd probably gleefully leak to the press my love of punk: The Clash, The Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedys, Rancid, Green Day- funk: P-Funk, George Clinton, Curtis Mayfield, Coldplay, Genesis and Fall Out Boy. Give people a chance to really parse my musical taste and not just construct a carefully made iPod so as not to offend people by saying things like 'hardcore gangsta rap just isn't my thing.'
11 Day Prayer Marathon
In India, they've organized an 11 Day Prayer Marathon to pray for the success of Obama in the upcoming elections. They're not doing that for McCain (at least not yet) and Obama is going to get a 15kg, 21 inch gold idol of Hindu deity of Hanuman.
This is awesome. Prayer is always good, but getting a Hanuman Idol? I'm kinda jealous. Not only is Hindu religious art quite striking to look at, but I like the basic Hindu notion (at least in my meager understanding) of there being multiple aspects of a single deity. It strikes me a sensible one- after all, everyone can see things from different points of view.
This is awesome. Prayer is always good, but getting a Hanuman Idol? I'm kinda jealous. Not only is Hindu religious art quite striking to look at, but I like the basic Hindu notion (at least in my meager understanding) of there being multiple aspects of a single deity. It strikes me a sensible one- after all, everyone can see things from different points of view.
First Day At Work
This job is going to work out just fine. It's a ten minute walk to work. You sign in. You go to work and the rest of the day is spent taking these out of boxes and putting them in smaller boxes so that they can then be put back into a box.
Is it exciting? Not really. Is it challenging? Not particularly. Do I have to deal with potentially annoying people for eight hours a day? Not in the slightest. You just get there and get to it. And they have lots of snacks to box.
This is going to be good.
Is it exciting? Not really. Is it challenging? Not particularly. Do I have to deal with potentially annoying people for eight hours a day? Not in the slightest. You just get there and get to it. And they have lots of snacks to box.
This is going to be good.
Censorship Is Everywhere
Nancy Pelosi wants to bring the media fairness doctrine back. This is a doctrine that essentially forces radio stations to grant equal time to opposing points of view. Any opposing points of view:
This is nothing more than politically motivated censorship on the part of the Democratic leadership and although there's a Republican sponsored bill to outlaw the fairness doctrine entirely, it doesn't look like it's going to get anywhere anytime soon.
Argh. This is annoying. First of all: no compromising on the First Amendment. EVER. And I don't care who's doing it, Republicans or Democrats- this sort of thing is a big no, no, especially in the world we live in. We need a right to speech. An unencumbered right to speech and the fairness doctrine is essentially a legal tool to shutdown conservative talk radio, which is a fairly potent political mobilization tool that the Republicans have and the Democrats don't. (The failure of Air America notwithstanding) forcing stations to grant equal time is just another way of shutting them down- nor should stations be forced to grant equal time. You don't like something you see on the TV, read in the newspaper or hear on the radio- write a letter or better yet... start your own newspaper/TV station/radio station and go from there. The freedom to do that is the most American thing of all.
Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.
This is nothing more than politically motivated censorship on the part of the Democratic leadership and although there's a Republican sponsored bill to outlaw the fairness doctrine entirely, it doesn't look like it's going to get anywhere anytime soon.
Argh. This is annoying. First of all: no compromising on the First Amendment. EVER. And I don't care who's doing it, Republicans or Democrats- this sort of thing is a big no, no, especially in the world we live in. We need a right to speech. An unencumbered right to speech and the fairness doctrine is essentially a legal tool to shutdown conservative talk radio, which is a fairly potent political mobilization tool that the Republicans have and the Democrats don't. (The failure of Air America notwithstanding) forcing stations to grant equal time is just another way of shutting them down- nor should stations be forced to grant equal time. You don't like something you see on the TV, read in the newspaper or hear on the radio- write a letter or better yet... start your own newspaper/TV station/radio station and go from there. The freedom to do that is the most American thing of all.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Scandalous!
There could be major trouble brewing in D.C. for the Bush Administration. I mean, it's sort of amazing that there hasn't been more trouble before, but Democratic leaders while occasionally spineless were eminently sensible in taking impeachment off the table. The last impeachment ran off the tracks on about day 2 into a circus of politics instead of facts and deliberation- in today's partisan climate, another attempt would probably be headed down the same road. That and the nightmarish words: "President Cheney" probably kept the Democratic Congressional Leadership from doing something rash for too long.
That may no longer be an option. With the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last year at the behest of nearly everyone in Washington D.C., the Democrats on judiciary started poking around hiring practices- and they dug up a doozy: the OPR and the Department of Justice's Inspector General have concluded that Republican politics were used in hiring practices- people with Democratic ties and 'liberal' leanings were passed over, while loyal Republicans were hired.
This is bad, bad news for the Bushies and puts the Democrats in a bind. We cannot all ow for the politicization of the Department of Justice. We need lawyers who can do their job based on the law and not be encumbered by loyalties to the administration. W e need a DOJ that can take on the White House and anything else if they feel the law is being violated and the President didn't provide us with that.
Calls for something- a 'Grand Inquest' are already growing and certainly, I think censure should be considered. I'm not sure anything illegal happened but certainly something massive shady that has all kinds of implications for the Constitutional Balance of powers- but there could be pitfalls ahead and it's the kind of thing that, in an election year, could explode in the faces of the Democrats on the verge of what would appear to be a very good year.
That may no longer be an option. With the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last year at the behest of nearly everyone in Washington D.C., the Democrats on judiciary started poking around hiring practices- and they dug up a doozy: the OPR and the Department of Justice's Inspector General have concluded that Republican politics were used in hiring practices- people with Democratic ties and 'liberal' leanings were passed over, while loyal Republicans were hired.
This is bad, bad news for the Bushies and puts the Democrats in a bind. We cannot all ow for the politicization of the Department of Justice. We need lawyers who can do their job based on the law and not be encumbered by loyalties to the administration. W e need a DOJ that can take on the White House and anything else if they feel the law is being violated and the President didn't provide us with that.
Calls for something- a 'Grand Inquest' are already growing and certainly, I think censure should be considered. I'm not sure anything illegal happened but certainly something massive shady that has all kinds of implications for the Constitutional Balance of powers- but there could be pitfalls ahead and it's the kind of thing that, in an election year, could explode in the faces of the Democrats on the verge of what would appear to be a very good year.
Trains Won't Work?
Found this article over at Pajamas Media discussing why trains as a passenger service just won't ever work again in America. The author posits trips from Denver to D.C., Denver to NYC and Denver to LA and calculates some numbers comparing planes and trains and concludes that planes are more economical. I disagree.
Let's re-calculate a bit:
All directions are from Mapquest. And we're assuming an non-stop express train with speeds similar to the TGV, which runs at top speeds of 200 MPH.
Denver-DC: 1689.82 miles= 8.44 hours
Denver-NYC: 1779.69 miles= 8.89 hours
Denver-LA: 1018.51 miles= 5.09 hours
As you can see, its far short of the 74, 54 and 90 hour times that the author predicted. And the prices would change too! If we made the investment and built tracks specifically graded for high speed rail, anything is possible- and train travel could be very economical. Granted, the above times are assuming no stops and a constant speed of 200 MPH throughout the journey- but even so, we can add about three hours to each journey which amounts to about 12, 12 and 8 hours respectively to each prospective destination.
What we need is for the government to make the necessary investment and for them to co-opt the automobile and airline companies to help pay for it. There's money to be made in more than one form of transportation. And if you price it between plane tickets and the price of driving then you could potentially have a niche market for train travel again.
Let's re-calculate a bit:
All directions are from Mapquest. And we're assuming an non-stop express train with speeds similar to the TGV, which runs at top speeds of 200 MPH.
Denver-DC: 1689.82 miles= 8.44 hours
Denver-NYC: 1779.69 miles= 8.89 hours
Denver-LA: 1018.51 miles= 5.09 hours
As you can see, its far short of the 74, 54 and 90 hour times that the author predicted. And the prices would change too! If we made the investment and built tracks specifically graded for high speed rail, anything is possible- and train travel could be very economical. Granted, the above times are assuming no stops and a constant speed of 200 MPH throughout the journey- but even so, we can add about three hours to each journey which amounts to about 12, 12 and 8 hours respectively to each prospective destination.
What we need is for the government to make the necessary investment and for them to co-opt the automobile and airline companies to help pay for it. There's money to be made in more than one form of transportation. And if you price it between plane tickets and the price of driving then you could potentially have a niche market for train travel again.
Obama vs. Dobson
Focus on the Family head James Dobson has slammed Obama for his interpretation of the Bible and pushing what he referred to as a 'fruitcake interpretation' of the Constitution. It's pretty juicy stuff, obviously and I can't say that I agree with it.
First of all: the Bible is where a lot of Evangelicals completely lose me. There's no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible. People have a tendency to cherry-pick which undermines their argument a great deal. Evangelicals can trumpet literal interpretations of the Bible all they want, but if you're against homosexuality because of the Bible, then it follows that you should be in favor of slavery, which the Bible approves of. Absolutes in morality are what evangelicals seem to be big on- and you can't pick and choose what you follow with 'God's law.'
Yet they do. Hmmm, kind of undermines the whole 'the Bible is the literal truth and should be obeyed as such' thing. I have to admit that my understanding of the complexities of evangelical theology may be limited, so feel free to correct me. But from what I get from my basic Christian knowledge, the whole literalism thing seems a little off to me.
Second of all: Dobson might have a stronger point here:
If you ignore the slightly shrill quotes, the first graph is kind of a good point. People have faith. People believe what they believe. I think Obama is right in that pro-life arguments could be re-framed to appeal to more people, but Dobson kind of has a point in that if your opposition to any given social issue is religiously based, then you shouldn't soften your opposition and by extension, your beliefs just to appeal to more people.
The quotes I have to admit are a little shrill. And you have to wonder why we need to necessarily hew to Dobson's interpretation of the Bible or the Constitution. And is he even qualified to judge someone's interpretation of the Constitution?
First of all: the Bible is where a lot of Evangelicals completely lose me. There's no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible. People have a tendency to cherry-pick which undermines their argument a great deal. Evangelicals can trumpet literal interpretations of the Bible all they want, but if you're against homosexuality because of the Bible, then it follows that you should be in favor of slavery, which the Bible approves of. Absolutes in morality are what evangelicals seem to be big on- and you can't pick and choose what you follow with 'God's law.'
Yet they do. Hmmm, kind of undermines the whole 'the Bible is the literal truth and should be obeyed as such' thing. I have to admit that my understanding of the complexities of evangelical theology may be limited, so feel free to correct me. But from what I get from my basic Christian knowledge, the whole literalism thing seems a little off to me.
Second of all: Dobson might have a stronger point here:
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.
He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."
If you ignore the slightly shrill quotes, the first graph is kind of a good point. People have faith. People believe what they believe. I think Obama is right in that pro-life arguments could be re-framed to appeal to more people, but Dobson kind of has a point in that if your opposition to any given social issue is religiously based, then you shouldn't soften your opposition and by extension, your beliefs just to appeal to more people.
The quotes I have to admit are a little shrill. And you have to wonder why we need to necessarily hew to Dobson's interpretation of the Bible or the Constitution. And is he even qualified to judge someone's interpretation of the Constitution?
The Truth about Hugh
There's a biography of Hugh Hefner coming out that's supposed to be pretty accurate and authoritative. Quick preview here and it's pretty kinky stuff as one would expect. Foursomes, gay trysts, all the bells and whistles. Enjoy!
Some Local News
A trifecta of items of local news from here in Mankato:
1. The Children's Museum of Southern Minnesota is coming soon, apparently.
2. If you get your gas from Ray's Market in North Mankato, you won't be able too for long. They're taking out their gas pumps. Rising prices mean that credit card companies are eating into more and more of their profit margins to the point where its just not profitable for them to sell gas anymore.
3. And with three weeks to the filing deadline, many local state politicians are waiting to see who their opponents are going to be.
1. The Children's Museum of Southern Minnesota is coming soon, apparently.
2. If you get your gas from Ray's Market in North Mankato, you won't be able too for long. They're taking out their gas pumps. Rising prices mean that credit card companies are eating into more and more of their profit margins to the point where its just not profitable for them to sell gas anymore.
3. And with three weeks to the filing deadline, many local state politicians are waiting to see who their opponents are going to be.
MSU in Edina
MSU is opening up a facility at 7700 France in Edina to better serve people in the Southwest Twin Cities Metro area. It's kind of a formalization of the partnership they already have with Normandale Community College up in the Cities- but it's also an interesting move on MSU's part, I think.
I never really sat down to think about the challenges of expansion in a Division II school- I came up from Division I at Iowa, where everything is big and enormous and the hospital eats up acres of campus space every other year- but the situation would have to be different when you're dealing with a smaller school. A lot of people commute down to Mankato to take classes at MSU- and more than a few professors go the other way to teach at Normandale or even live in the Cities, so if a significant chunk of your students come from the SW Metro, why not open up a facility up there?
It's remarkable forward thinking for MSU. I have to admit a certain amount of irritation with the school over the course of my time here. Graduate Students are almost an afterthought, in many respects: we tried to start a 'Grad Society' type of thing with an eye for future unionization, but it didn't really get off the ground. The fact that most MA programs are two year programs, by the time grads meet, get organized and get things moving, they'll be about done with their degrees. But there were common complaints when we got together: assistantships are apportioned on the basis of who you know in many cases- departments are halving assistantships in the name of getting more people assistantships- but the workload stays the same. Half the money for the same amount of work. It's kind of a crock.
Then there was the Interior Design Program (this is Ali's rant of choice) it was, for some weird reason stuck under Construction Management. Which was weird enough and probably doomed the program. Interior Design is more an offshot of art than construction- but what was really ass-backwards was that the program was growing. By the time Ali had wrapped up her degree it was up to 250 students or so- and they still shut it down.
At the same time they were doing this, of course, they were pushing a 14 million dollar rec proposal to renovate fields. Fields. They needed, I believe, a soccer and a lacrosse field- leaving me to wonder why they couldn't just have had one field between them.
So yeah, there's a lot backwardness at MSU, in my mind. But this seems pretty sensible.
I never really sat down to think about the challenges of expansion in a Division II school- I came up from Division I at Iowa, where everything is big and enormous and the hospital eats up acres of campus space every other year- but the situation would have to be different when you're dealing with a smaller school. A lot of people commute down to Mankato to take classes at MSU- and more than a few professors go the other way to teach at Normandale or even live in the Cities, so if a significant chunk of your students come from the SW Metro, why not open up a facility up there?
It's remarkable forward thinking for MSU. I have to admit a certain amount of irritation with the school over the course of my time here. Graduate Students are almost an afterthought, in many respects: we tried to start a 'Grad Society' type of thing with an eye for future unionization, but it didn't really get off the ground. The fact that most MA programs are two year programs, by the time grads meet, get organized and get things moving, they'll be about done with their degrees. But there were common complaints when we got together: assistantships are apportioned on the basis of who you know in many cases- departments are halving assistantships in the name of getting more people assistantships- but the workload stays the same. Half the money for the same amount of work. It's kind of a crock.
Then there was the Interior Design Program (this is Ali's rant of choice) it was, for some weird reason stuck under Construction Management. Which was weird enough and probably doomed the program. Interior Design is more an offshot of art than construction- but what was really ass-backwards was that the program was growing. By the time Ali had wrapped up her degree it was up to 250 students or so- and they still shut it down.
At the same time they were doing this, of course, they were pushing a 14 million dollar rec proposal to renovate fields. Fields. They needed, I believe, a soccer and a lacrosse field- leaving me to wonder why they couldn't just have had one field between them.
So yeah, there's a lot backwardness at MSU, in my mind. But this seems pretty sensible.
Golf, anyone?
So, courtesy of the Star Tribune, a preview of next week's US Women's Open at Interlachen in Edina. People (sports snobs) may sneer at the LPGA, but it's a major sports tournament and it's in Minnesota and the StarTrib looks to have a fairly comprehensive amount of coverage.
Golf fans... enjoy.
Golf fans... enjoy.
Cleaning Day
Blogging should be light today, just as a warning- Ali and I have days off (I start at MRCI tomorrow, she just has a random day off) so we're mucking out the closets and getting some stuff off to the Salvo to prepare for the big move. In 26 DAYS!
Monday, June 23, 2008
Muslim Country Singer
Not three words you'd expect to see put together, but this is America. And apparently the first known Muslim country singer got his start in, of all places, Iowa City. You can read about him, here.
Huisentruit's Journals
From the Star Tribune, this news- Jodi Huisentruit's journals have been mailed to the Mason City Globe Gazette from an address from Waterloo. Huisentruit was the popular, local news anchor whose disappearance in 1995 was extremely well-publicized across the nation. I remember hearing a lot about this case as a kid and it got an occasional mention on the news is Eastern Iowa.
Oddly enough though, a cursory glance at the Globe Gazette's site doesn't even get a mention of this- though authorities are looking into it, so they probably want to wait until they get a go-ahead from the proper people. But this is an interesting lead, potentially- hopefully it goes somewhere.
Oddly enough though, a cursory glance at the Globe Gazette's site doesn't even get a mention of this- though authorities are looking into it, so they probably want to wait until they get a go-ahead from the proper people. But this is an interesting lead, potentially- hopefully it goes somewhere.
Oopsy!
Freudian slip today of epic proportions by a McCain Adviser who said that another terror attack on U.S. soil would be an advantage for McCain in the election. McCain and the adviser have since apologized for the remarks, but jeez. Big screw up. The pendulum might start swinging back Obama's way after a couple of rough weeks in the media.
Broadly speaking though, the adviser is kind of right- unless the psychology of America has changed since 9-11 in ways the media can't track, a terror attack on the scale of 9-11 (or even smaller) would freak people out. They'd rally around the flag and bizzarely, the GOP holds advantages on national security. Given their record, I don't know why- but the most likely scenario in that case would be a surge for the GOP, especially if people feel threatened.
BUT! This isn't a normal election- Obama can rightly make the argument that 8 years of GOP idiocy hasn't made America any safer and that has a serious chance of sticking with the electorate, I think.
But this hasn't been the best week for all sides, really- McCain's had a rough week, the GOP is worried about Bob Barr (who has the potential to be a spoiler and maybe put Georgia in play with increased African-American turnout for Obama)
The bad news continues for the GOP- with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell incredibly facing a tight race for his seat in Kentucky (he has a slim four point lead-) and perhaps the ultimate 'oopsy!' with a pro-life GOP candidate in Oregon being accused of paying for an ex-girlfriend's abortion.
In the name of being non-partisan, it has to be noted that Obama hasn't had the greatest of weeks either: his campaign debuted a faux Presidential seal that vanished very quickly (good thing too- that might just be a little premature on their part) and a few other missteps haven't helped either.
Ooopsies all around, I guess.
Broadly speaking though, the adviser is kind of right- unless the psychology of America has changed since 9-11 in ways the media can't track, a terror attack on the scale of 9-11 (or even smaller) would freak people out. They'd rally around the flag and bizzarely, the GOP holds advantages on national security. Given their record, I don't know why- but the most likely scenario in that case would be a surge for the GOP, especially if people feel threatened.
BUT! This isn't a normal election- Obama can rightly make the argument that 8 years of GOP idiocy hasn't made America any safer and that has a serious chance of sticking with the electorate, I think.
But this hasn't been the best week for all sides, really- McCain's had a rough week, the GOP is worried about Bob Barr (who has the potential to be a spoiler and maybe put Georgia in play with increased African-American turnout for Obama)
The bad news continues for the GOP- with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell incredibly facing a tight race for his seat in Kentucky (he has a slim four point lead-) and perhaps the ultimate 'oopsy!' with a pro-life GOP candidate in Oregon being accused of paying for an ex-girlfriend's abortion.
In the name of being non-partisan, it has to be noted that Obama hasn't had the greatest of weeks either: his campaign debuted a faux Presidential seal that vanished very quickly (good thing too- that might just be a little premature on their part) and a few other missteps haven't helped either.
Ooopsies all around, I guess.
Some Kind of Record
The tally thus far:
Panera
Hollywood Video
Best Buy
Lowes
Tim Walz Campaign
DFL
Jack Nelson Pallmeyer Campaign
Landscaper at the Mall
Cub Foods
Tunetown
DQ
Barnes and Noble
Hallmark
Tradehome
GNC
Payless
PetCo
US Bank
Wells Fargo
Jimmy Johns
Noodles
Inta-Juice
Chipotle
Coldstone
BioLife
Wal-Mart
Sam's Club
Best Western
Alltell
Best Buy (Loss Prevention)
TGIFs
Portrait Studio, Wal-Mart
The Hub
Mall Movie Theater
Happy Joe's
Buffalo Wild Wings (Hill Top)
Drummers
Captain Jack's Liquor
Scheels
Kwik Trip (x5)
Home Depot (x11)
Express Personnel
Famous Footware
At the end of the latest round of job searching (those ones at the end aren't submitted yet) I'll have applied 43 places for 59 positions with 5 interviews and still no job.
This has to be some kind of record.
**UPDATE: WE HAVE A WINNER! Thank you, Express Personnel Services of North Mankato, MN!!! They had a job for me: factory work at MRCI, Monday-Friday, 8.50/hr. I start Wednesday!
But it gets BETTER: the place is literally a ten minute walk from my apartment- and MRCI needs people through AUGUST! So if I work my butt off and really impress them (and for a job this good that pays this much this close to where I live, you better believe I'm gonna) I could conceivably (cross fingers, everyone!) have a job for the rest of the summer!
Panera
Hollywood Video
Best Buy
Lowes
Tim Walz Campaign
DFL
Jack Nelson Pallmeyer Campaign
Landscaper at the Mall
Cub Foods
Tunetown
DQ
Barnes and Noble
Hallmark
Tradehome
GNC
Payless
PetCo
US Bank
Wells Fargo
Jimmy Johns
Noodles
Inta-Juice
Chipotle
Coldstone
BioLife
Wal-Mart
Sam's Club
Best Western
Alltell
Best Buy (Loss Prevention)
TGIFs
Portrait Studio, Wal-Mart
The Hub
Mall Movie Theater
Happy Joe's
Buffalo Wild Wings (Hill Top)
Drummers
Captain Jack's Liquor
Scheels
Kwik Trip (x5)
Home Depot (x11)
Express Personnel
Famous Footware
At the end of the latest round of job searching (those ones at the end aren't submitted yet) I'll have applied 43 places for 59 positions with 5 interviews and still no job.
This has to be some kind of record.
**UPDATE: WE HAVE A WINNER! Thank you, Express Personnel Services of North Mankato, MN!!! They had a job for me: factory work at MRCI, Monday-Friday, 8.50/hr. I start Wednesday!
But it gets BETTER: the place is literally a ten minute walk from my apartment- and MRCI needs people through AUGUST! So if I work my butt off and really impress them (and for a job this good that pays this much this close to where I live, you better believe I'm gonna) I could conceivably (cross fingers, everyone!) have a job for the rest of the summer!
So... no pact?
The Mayor of Gloucester, Mass. has come out and said that there's no proof that there was a pregnancy pact on the part of the 17 girls at Gloucester High School that got pregnant this year. Moreover, she's said the Principal at the high school that made the claim just has a faulty memory or something.
Hmmm, well either way, you have to ask some hard questions of yourselves if you live in Gloucester. I mean, 17 girls in one year is not at all a small number and you'd probably want to take steps to lower that number. Education on birth control, for instance? Active parenting, perhaps? It's probably easy for people (like me) to cherry-pick options, but at the end of the day something should be done.
**UPDATE: Found this article from Pajamas Media as well. Kinda interesting- so read, discuss, digest, etc.
Hmmm, well either way, you have to ask some hard questions of yourselves if you live in Gloucester. I mean, 17 girls in one year is not at all a small number and you'd probably want to take steps to lower that number. Education on birth control, for instance? Active parenting, perhaps? It's probably easy for people (like me) to cherry-pick options, but at the end of the day something should be done.
**UPDATE: Found this article from Pajamas Media as well. Kinda interesting- so read, discuss, digest, etc.
Fainting Goats
I didn't believe this when Shon told me about 'em (gotta give credit where its due) but it's true. There are things called fainting goats. And yes, they do, in fact, faint. And they have officially made my list of livestock I'd love to raise. (If I had the money, time and inclination to start a farm somewhere. Fainting goats and alpacas, I think...)
PUMAs!
Via Feministing, an article by Rebecca Traistler on the anger that many Clinton supporters still feel and the growing PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) feelings that are coming from many Clinton Supporters. Traistler gives 12 reasons why Clinton supporters are still pissed off, some of which I agreed with, some of which I didn't. To be honest and upfront about it, I was never a fan of Clinton. The ineptitude of her campaign managers was infuriating and the fact that she (well, not really her, more Mark Penn and company) blew a huge opportunity didn't sit well with me. This Clinton Campaign to me was uncharacteristic in that in politics just weren't played well this time around.
Then there was the candidate herself. I had a mixed relationship with her- I'd watch speeches and I'd be astonished to find myself thinking that this was a candidate who was everything advertised and more- tough, unbending, ass-kicking- a real true leader. And then there were times it'd just be painful to watch. There was her husband too and the prospect of having to relive all his bullshit courtesy of the GOP.
There were any number of reasons I didn't support her, all of which made sense in my head.
Traistler's list of 12 reasons is a mixed bag, to me- some of them I agreed with, some of them I don't:
"#2: They're pissed because their historic opportunity is over:" I say- get some perspective already. You made history with this campaign and congratulations, the ultimate glass ceiling has a crack in it and you've shattered another ceiling- women can now be taken seriously as Presidential candidates. It was bullshit that they weren't before, of course- massively sexist bullshit, but Senator Clinton has made damn sure that no woman who decides to run can ever be dismissed à la Carol Mosely Braun or Elizabeth Dole. Plus, it may not happen this year, but the question of a woman President is not just a matter of 'if' but when.
"#3: They're angry because Obama may choose a woman other than Clinton as his running mate:" I say- for the love of pete, WHY? If the name of the game is getting qualified women into higher elected office, then who cares who gets their foot in the door as long as someone does. Saying that Senator Clinton is the only qualified woman in this country who deserves higher elected office is bullshit in my humble opinion and does a massive disservice to every other female politician in the country. OK, I can understand that people don't get that excited about Kathleen Sibelius and I'm not sure she could deliver Kansas- but someone like Janet Napolitano could be a huge asset. Senator Clinton was an incredibly qualified candidate, but there are plenty of others. I could see their point if Senator Obama was picking a woman in a foolish attempt to placate them, but- if Senator Obama thinks its time for a woman to be in a number 2 slot, then so be it- Traistler's point is well-taken though- a woman should have more than 'a pair of mams' going for her if that is the case.
"#12: They're angry because they feel they're held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs:" I say- that's what a two-party system gets you. If you don't like it, get serious about forming another party. I'm not wild about the idea of a split in the Democratic Party throwing the election to the Republicans, but sometimes it needs to be done. In Britain, the 'Gang of Four' split from the Labour Party to form the SDP and now the Liberal Democrats are the third party of British politics. It'd be tough, but if someone got serious about it and actually crafted more of a serious alternative instead of an avenue for protest votes against the system (no disrespect to the Greens or Libertarians, but can they really govern? Really?) there would be options for people.
Traistler's article also makes important points about sexism in the media during the campaign, but it misses equally important points about some of the short-sightedness of second wave feminism. What struck me was the overwhelming sense of outrage emanating from some feminist quarters. Where were they during the 1990s, I had to wonder? My memory may be clouded by things like high school, but I sure don't remember protests in the street on Hillary Clinton's behalf back then. She's been the target of sexism for two decades now and the knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on the sexist media (some of whom were very sexist, Chris Matthews, I'm looking at you!) deliberate obscures the fact that there were political missteps and blunders made that did far more damage than sexist media idiots.
Then there was the candidate herself. I had a mixed relationship with her- I'd watch speeches and I'd be astonished to find myself thinking that this was a candidate who was everything advertised and more- tough, unbending, ass-kicking- a real true leader. And then there were times it'd just be painful to watch. There was her husband too and the prospect of having to relive all his bullshit courtesy of the GOP.
There were any number of reasons I didn't support her, all of which made sense in my head.
Traistler's list of 12 reasons is a mixed bag, to me- some of them I agreed with, some of them I don't:
"#2: They're pissed because their historic opportunity is over:" I say- get some perspective already. You made history with this campaign and congratulations, the ultimate glass ceiling has a crack in it and you've shattered another ceiling- women can now be taken seriously as Presidential candidates. It was bullshit that they weren't before, of course- massively sexist bullshit, but Senator Clinton has made damn sure that no woman who decides to run can ever be dismissed à la Carol Mosely Braun or Elizabeth Dole. Plus, it may not happen this year, but the question of a woman President is not just a matter of 'if' but when.
"#3: They're angry because Obama may choose a woman other than Clinton as his running mate:" I say- for the love of pete, WHY? If the name of the game is getting qualified women into higher elected office, then who cares who gets their foot in the door as long as someone does. Saying that Senator Clinton is the only qualified woman in this country who deserves higher elected office is bullshit in my humble opinion and does a massive disservice to every other female politician in the country. OK, I can understand that people don't get that excited about Kathleen Sibelius and I'm not sure she could deliver Kansas- but someone like Janet Napolitano could be a huge asset. Senator Clinton was an incredibly qualified candidate, but there are plenty of others. I could see their point if Senator Obama was picking a woman in a foolish attempt to placate them, but- if Senator Obama thinks its time for a woman to be in a number 2 slot, then so be it- Traistler's point is well-taken though- a woman should have more than 'a pair of mams' going for her if that is the case.
"#12: They're angry because they feel they're held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs:" I say- that's what a two-party system gets you. If you don't like it, get serious about forming another party. I'm not wild about the idea of a split in the Democratic Party throwing the election to the Republicans, but sometimes it needs to be done. In Britain, the 'Gang of Four' split from the Labour Party to form the SDP and now the Liberal Democrats are the third party of British politics. It'd be tough, but if someone got serious about it and actually crafted more of a serious alternative instead of an avenue for protest votes against the system (no disrespect to the Greens or Libertarians, but can they really govern? Really?) there would be options for people.
Traistler's article also makes important points about sexism in the media during the campaign, but it misses equally important points about some of the short-sightedness of second wave feminism. What struck me was the overwhelming sense of outrage emanating from some feminist quarters. Where were they during the 1990s, I had to wonder? My memory may be clouded by things like high school, but I sure don't remember protests in the street on Hillary Clinton's behalf back then. She's been the target of sexism for two decades now and the knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on the sexist media (some of whom were very sexist, Chris Matthews, I'm looking at you!) deliberate obscures the fact that there were political missteps and blunders made that did far more damage than sexist media idiots.
News from Zimbabwe
The election troubles in Zimbabwe continue to mount- the MDC has pulled out of the election following arrests of their supporters and violence in Harare leading up to the run-off election. And now, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has taken refuge in the Dutch Embassy to consider his next moves and hopefully protect himself from being arrested by pro-government, pro-Mugabe forces.
I have a bad feeling about all of this, that's it not going to end well at all. I was thrilled beyond belief when the MDC forced a run-off election and it was actually done despite some fairly blatant attempts at government forces to rig some of the results. With the writing on the wall, Mugabe and the MDC both decided to gear up for the run-off, but having been caught out once, Mugabe wasn't going to be caught out again. Violence erupted and now it looks like Mugabe is going to steal another election.
And it's incredibly tragic. Mugabe was hailed as one of the rising leaders of Africa when he took over leadership of Zimbabwe after independence. And for two decades it worked. Maybe Zimbabwe wasn't the richest country in the world, but it functioned. And then Mugabe flipped out and decided to re-distribute farmland and expel white farmers. His economy collapsed and it's all been downhill from there. I'm not an expert on development in Africa or what's going to fix the problem- but the lack rule of law and good government and better leaders in some countries are a huge problem.
What's the solution? I don't honestly know.
I have a bad feeling about all of this, that's it not going to end well at all. I was thrilled beyond belief when the MDC forced a run-off election and it was actually done despite some fairly blatant attempts at government forces to rig some of the results. With the writing on the wall, Mugabe and the MDC both decided to gear up for the run-off, but having been caught out once, Mugabe wasn't going to be caught out again. Violence erupted and now it looks like Mugabe is going to steal another election.
And it's incredibly tragic. Mugabe was hailed as one of the rising leaders of Africa when he took over leadership of Zimbabwe after independence. And for two decades it worked. Maybe Zimbabwe wasn't the richest country in the world, but it functioned. And then Mugabe flipped out and decided to re-distribute farmland and expel white farmers. His economy collapsed and it's all been downhill from there. I'm not an expert on development in Africa or what's going to fix the problem- but the lack rule of law and good government and better leaders in some countries are a huge problem.
What's the solution? I don't honestly know.
McCain Will Give You 300 Million
So John McCain is going to offer a $300 million prize for whomever gets us a better car battery that can get us out of oil and 'leapfrog existing hybrid technologies.'
Another smart move! See, I told you! I'm all for Obama, but the press cycle has been dismissing McCain for a couple of weeks now and it's all been premature. They wrote him off in the primaries and writing him off now will be a huge mistake. Obama has the ability to re-write the electoral map and win. McCain has the ability to overcome huge liabilities to win. This is what makes this election so damn interesting, to me! They both have huge liabilities that could kill the election for them, but they're both capable of overcoming those liabilities to win. Whoever does a better job of it gets The White House.
The idea is hardly innovative- the Ansari X Prize sparked a private race to create a space plane- and it's smart move for the government. That, to me, is what could make government very effective. Government-made or Government-run is just asking for bureaucratic inefficiency- but the government is very good at writing checks- and we're a country chock-full of rich geeks that like to spend their money doing useful things for society and the country.
Another smart move! See, I told you! I'm all for Obama, but the press cycle has been dismissing McCain for a couple of weeks now and it's all been premature. They wrote him off in the primaries and writing him off now will be a huge mistake. Obama has the ability to re-write the electoral map and win. McCain has the ability to overcome huge liabilities to win. This is what makes this election so damn interesting, to me! They both have huge liabilities that could kill the election for them, but they're both capable of overcoming those liabilities to win. Whoever does a better job of it gets The White House.
The idea is hardly innovative- the Ansari X Prize sparked a private race to create a space plane- and it's smart move for the government. That, to me, is what could make government very effective. Government-made or Government-run is just asking for bureaucratic inefficiency- but the government is very good at writing checks- and we're a country chock-full of rich geeks that like to spend their money doing useful things for society and the country.
Smart Move
Tom Brokaw is coming out of retirement, so to speak to take over 'Meet The Press' for Tim Russert. Russert, who's death last week left NBC in something of a delicate position, was a highly respected journalist (probably the highly respected journalist of Washington, if not the whole business) and finding someone to replace him would be a difficult task- but I think this is the smartest move they can make. The only one out there who has the gravitas (whatever that means, it's a bit ambiguous to me) and the chops to fill the seat until they can transition to someone else is Brokaw.
There were rumors of Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann wanting the job, but they were shot down quickly. MSNBC and NBC do not mix journalists- I think it's safe to say that in the modern age, cable news anchors are all about the shocking, cheap shots, controversies, stupid grudges and stunts you can do to get the ratings. Matthews is much better where he is and NBC would have been tarred and feathered (yes, the whole building) if they would have given Olbermann the reins of the most respected political round-table they had.
But good move, NBC. Brokaw can handle it- until you can figure out who you want in there for reals.
There were rumors of Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann wanting the job, but they were shot down quickly. MSNBC and NBC do not mix journalists- I think it's safe to say that in the modern age, cable news anchors are all about the shocking, cheap shots, controversies, stupid grudges and stunts you can do to get the ratings. Matthews is much better where he is and NBC would have been tarred and feathered (yes, the whole building) if they would have given Olbermann the reins of the most respected political round-table they had.
But good move, NBC. Brokaw can handle it- until you can figure out who you want in there for reals.
George Carlin Died.
This is not a good way to start the morning, but George Carlin has died in Los Angeles at the age of 71. I have to say that he was probably about a decade before my time- I never got to see the infamous '7 Dirty Words' routine or any of the other controversial stuff he's remembered for. I do remember him in Dogma as the 'modernizing Catholic archbishop' who invents things like the 'Buddy Christ.' You also have to give the guy some props (because I didn't know this) but apparently he was arrested several times for obscenity in his routines, went to court and most of the cases were dismissed- so he was funny and he fought for the First Amendment! A two-fer!
But, for your viewing pleasure- 'Seven Words.' Be warned, there's strong language in there. (Duh!)
P.S. I just love the amount of detail he goes into dissecting the etymology of these seven words. People use 'em all the time and don't really think about what they're saying- and Carlin does, which is what makes this funnier.
But, for your viewing pleasure- 'Seven Words.' Be warned, there's strong language in there. (Duh!)
P.S. I just love the amount of detail he goes into dissecting the etymology of these seven words. People use 'em all the time and don't really think about what they're saying- and Carlin does, which is what makes this funnier.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Saturday Night in Glenville...
Ali and I are off to visit some peeps in Glenville, MN. Back tomorrow.
Euro 2008 Updates
Wow. Russia is minutes away from going to the semi-finals of the European Championships for the first time since the break-up of the Soviet Union, thanks to Guus Hiddink, wonder coach extraordinaire. They've put on quite the show today. They've played fast, furious football and were incredibly fast off the counter-attack and the Dutch just looked awful.
The concerns throughout the group stages with the Dutch have been their back four. They've just looked sloppy on defense at the back and Russia took full advantage of that- especially with their speed. The Dutch got one back in the 86th minute but the Russians added 2 more in overtime to win it handily 3-1. (It's official. They won as I wrote this.)
So, I was cheering for Portugal. I was cheering for the Netherlands. You can be damn sure I won't be cheering for Spain- and I might be cheering for Germany at this rate, ;-) but wow. Big surprise. Turkey got through yesterday on PKs against the Czech Republic and now this. Hiddink is genius. He got the Aussies out of the group stages in the last World Cup- something unheard of, since the Aussies are more rugby players than football players- but someone needs to get ahold of the US Men's National Team and tell them that if they need a coach they should get Hiddink. He seems to have this golden touch for taking random teams deep into tournaments and he's got the Russians back to the semi-finals for the first time in 20 years. Not bad at all.
So wow, where does this leave us: Turkey-Germany and Russia vs. Spain or Italy. I'm not sure how I feel about any of those match-ups. Germany looked hot against Portugal, but they also looked a little complacent at points too- and Turkey might just have the gumption to take advantage of that- and maybe, just maybe pull off the upset, but I doubt it. Russia looked damn good. Spain, Italy or Germany is going to have their hands full with Russia. People take note: there's a new player on the rise in European football. Whether they can keep at it is something else, but for right now, they're goin' on up.
The concerns throughout the group stages with the Dutch have been their back four. They've just looked sloppy on defense at the back and Russia took full advantage of that- especially with their speed. The Dutch got one back in the 86th minute but the Russians added 2 more in overtime to win it handily 3-1. (It's official. They won as I wrote this.)
So, I was cheering for Portugal. I was cheering for the Netherlands. You can be damn sure I won't be cheering for Spain- and I might be cheering for Germany at this rate, ;-) but wow. Big surprise. Turkey got through yesterday on PKs against the Czech Republic and now this. Hiddink is genius. He got the Aussies out of the group stages in the last World Cup- something unheard of, since the Aussies are more rugby players than football players- but someone needs to get ahold of the US Men's National Team and tell them that if they need a coach they should get Hiddink. He seems to have this golden touch for taking random teams deep into tournaments and he's got the Russians back to the semi-finals for the first time in 20 years. Not bad at all.
So wow, where does this leave us: Turkey-Germany and Russia vs. Spain or Italy. I'm not sure how I feel about any of those match-ups. Germany looked hot against Portugal, but they also looked a little complacent at points too- and Turkey might just have the gumption to take advantage of that- and maybe, just maybe pull off the upset, but I doubt it. Russia looked damn good. Spain, Italy or Germany is going to have their hands full with Russia. People take note: there's a new player on the rise in European football. Whether they can keep at it is something else, but for right now, they're goin' on up.
They Like the Cash Money
The latest numbers from the Presidential money race are in and McCain is sneaking up on Obama in the money race- bringing in just 400,000 less than Obama in the last month or so. There's more discussion on Obama's 'flip-flop' on public financing. As I've already noted, I'm indifferent about it. If the name of the game is to get to the White House, use every single advantage you can get. If the name of the game is to make a point about the campaign financing system and change the way elections are run in this country then who cares about public financing?
I think the pendulum is starting to swing towards McCain. I think it's a story that the media is doing its best to ignore, but you can print all the 15 point shock leads in the polls, but I think by the Conventions, the gap is going to close and this race is going to go down to the wire. I really and honestly think that energy policy could be the wedge issue the GOP could win on. The environmental movement's anathema towards offshore drilling and nuclear reactors conceals the fact that such moves are common sense moves that, if handled correctly can provide a transition to a truly Green technology-economy. The Left should be pointing that out, but it's too busy trying to shout down McCain to present its own plan.
But I also think that it's a mistake to underestimate Obama in this as well. I think Obama played the game correctly during the primaries and I think he'll do it again in the general. The name of the game is electoral votes and Obama has staffed up in all 50 states and is looking at polls that put him in reach in Virginia and Georgia. Whether he'll flip 'em is an open question, but still- that's what it's all about. National polls don't mean a damn thing at the end of the day. And there are running mates to think about.
And a round or two might go to McCain before this is done- but for right now: who cares about public financing? Obama changed the model and uses small donors- he's not a candidate with corporate sponsorship or anything. And the money'll keep up. It always does.
I think the pendulum is starting to swing towards McCain. I think it's a story that the media is doing its best to ignore, but you can print all the 15 point shock leads in the polls, but I think by the Conventions, the gap is going to close and this race is going to go down to the wire. I really and honestly think that energy policy could be the wedge issue the GOP could win on. The environmental movement's anathema towards offshore drilling and nuclear reactors conceals the fact that such moves are common sense moves that, if handled correctly can provide a transition to a truly Green technology-economy. The Left should be pointing that out, but it's too busy trying to shout down McCain to present its own plan.
But I also think that it's a mistake to underestimate Obama in this as well. I think Obama played the game correctly during the primaries and I think he'll do it again in the general. The name of the game is electoral votes and Obama has staffed up in all 50 states and is looking at polls that put him in reach in Virginia and Georgia. Whether he'll flip 'em is an open question, but still- that's what it's all about. National polls don't mean a damn thing at the end of the day. And there are running mates to think about.
And a round or two might go to McCain before this is done- but for right now: who cares about public financing? Obama changed the model and uses small donors- he's not a candidate with corporate sponsorship or anything. And the money'll keep up. It always does.
Longest Day of The Year
Summer Solstice is here! And it's the first day of summer- so there's a party goin' down at Stonehenge. Check it out.
Ice, Ice, Baby
Ice on Mars that is: this is good news for potential trips to Mars and potential colonization of Mars in the future. We need ice so we can melt it and drink the water or maybe fuel some stuff (hydrogen-wise...) And if you've read Kim Stanley Robinson- and if you haven't you should (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) then it's got implications for future terraforming efforts- (melt the ice and thicken the atmosphere up some.)
But ice. That's cool.
But ice. That's cool.
Spaceships, too!
Some criticism of NASA's lack of vision, here. I couldn't agree with it more- NASA, to me has been stuck in the doldrums of low earth orbit for way to long. The shuttle is sexy and all and it's wonderful we can re-use it and all, but it keeps us locked into the orbit of Earth. The International Space Station too, is a wonderful thing- but it too is pretty much just a floating tin can we do science experiments in.
NASA needs to get serious about a vision- and it also needs to get serious about privatizing the space industry. There have been some good initial steps with this- the X Prize, Burt Rutan's Space Ship One and Richard Branson's plans for Virgin Galactic. But NASA's hands are tied by the fact that its budget is controlled by the government. But this is what I think:
1. Privatization: Keep it coming. If there are companies that want to break into outer space, let 'em.
2. Think BIG! The criticisms that the new rocket NASA's working on is huge and the vibration problems with the new Ares crew vehicle are valid. It's just Saturn V redux and it overlooks the obvious problem. The huge costs of getting people off the ground and into space comes from the fact that it takes a huge amount of thrust to get out of Earth's gravity. So- why not build a ship up there? Make the ISS do something other than science experiments. Sure, it's be expensive to get a construction site up there, but in the long term, it'd save you money- plus, you get the re-usable vehicle parked in orbit.
3. Space Elevators. That's another sexy option. It seems crazy- an idea totally out of science fiction, and the technology is a long ways off, but it's being developed. Put some money in and push it a long a little.
4. Have Some Balls: Get a vision up here in this thing! Go to Mars, the moon, get bases, colonies. Make science fiction, science fact already! I'm tired of NASA dickin' around in orbit. Get the heck outta here!
NASA needs to get serious about a vision- and it also needs to get serious about privatizing the space industry. There have been some good initial steps with this- the X Prize, Burt Rutan's Space Ship One and Richard Branson's plans for Virgin Galactic. But NASA's hands are tied by the fact that its budget is controlled by the government. But this is what I think:
1. Privatization: Keep it coming. If there are companies that want to break into outer space, let 'em.
2. Think BIG! The criticisms that the new rocket NASA's working on is huge and the vibration problems with the new Ares crew vehicle are valid. It's just Saturn V redux and it overlooks the obvious problem. The huge costs of getting people off the ground and into space comes from the fact that it takes a huge amount of thrust to get out of Earth's gravity. So- why not build a ship up there? Make the ISS do something other than science experiments. Sure, it's be expensive to get a construction site up there, but in the long term, it'd save you money- plus, you get the re-usable vehicle parked in orbit.
3. Space Elevators. That's another sexy option. It seems crazy- an idea totally out of science fiction, and the technology is a long ways off, but it's being developed. Put some money in and push it a long a little.
4. Have Some Balls: Get a vision up here in this thing! Go to Mars, the moon, get bases, colonies. Make science fiction, science fact already! I'm tired of NASA dickin' around in orbit. Get the heck outta here!
Trains, Planes and Automobiles
Well, maybe just trains. Having family in Europe and having to been to Europe a few times, it's a source of amazement and irritation to me that this country doesn't have anything remotely resembling a high speed-rail system. It's just sad, in a way- because if anything, high speed trains, real high speed trains would totally appeal to the American desire for something fast that looks damn sexy. If you've never seen a TGV in person, go to France and see one. I remember staggering off the plane in DeGaulle (waiting for my sister for five hours or so) and then heading down to the train station so we could get a train to Nantes to see my other sister- and the first time I saw a TGV, well, the only world to describe it is 'sexy.' It's kind of weird to think of an inanimate object that way, but the lines of the thing, how sleek it looks? So damn sexy.
Anyway, there's a report that Amtrak is actually gaining ridership on the East Coast, but only has a ridiculously low number of cars they can use. 632. Yeah, that's right- ridiculously low! 632 cars for the entire country. How crazy is that? And now, they're running up against the fact that they don't have the capacity to meet their demands.
We need a high speed network in this country. It's one of the things that America sucks at and it doesn't have to be so. I know the car companies freak out about rail roads, but they should consider this: who gets to build the trains? Could Chrysler maybe build a train car? It's a potential source of investment for car companies and plane companies- and the government should pursue that strategy.
The problem with Amtrak is that its a tourist trap more than anything else. It needs to be an efficient method of getting people from point A to point B. We have a great freight system, so why not a great passenger system? To me, there's a reason.
Amtrak is government owned: fantastic for keeping a passenger service in existence, but shitty for growing an efficient rail service. If Congress controls your budget then everyone is Congress is going to be fighting, clawing and scratching to make sure the branch line that carries two people per day in their district stays in existence. I'm not saying the government gets out the way and lets Amtrak sink or swim- because the government has to do some stuff. Building and upgrading rail lines for high speed service across the country, for instance.
And it should initiate a plan to work with states and private companies to develop regional networks to integrate into a wider national network. It should also bring in airlines and car companies to invest in the new rail system because planes and automobiles can get some money out of real trains if they want to.
Let's consider: Mankato to the Cities is 80 miles. A direct high speed train going 200 MPH would get you to Minneapolis pretty damn quick. Think about it.
Someone should ask McCain and Obama what their plans for our trains are. And they should have serious plans.
Anyway, there's a report that Amtrak is actually gaining ridership on the East Coast, but only has a ridiculously low number of cars they can use. 632. Yeah, that's right- ridiculously low! 632 cars for the entire country. How crazy is that? And now, they're running up against the fact that they don't have the capacity to meet their demands.
We need a high speed network in this country. It's one of the things that America sucks at and it doesn't have to be so. I know the car companies freak out about rail roads, but they should consider this: who gets to build the trains? Could Chrysler maybe build a train car? It's a potential source of investment for car companies and plane companies- and the government should pursue that strategy.
The problem with Amtrak is that its a tourist trap more than anything else. It needs to be an efficient method of getting people from point A to point B. We have a great freight system, so why not a great passenger system? To me, there's a reason.
Amtrak is government owned: fantastic for keeping a passenger service in existence, but shitty for growing an efficient rail service. If Congress controls your budget then everyone is Congress is going to be fighting, clawing and scratching to make sure the branch line that carries two people per day in their district stays in existence. I'm not saying the government gets out the way and lets Amtrak sink or swim- because the government has to do some stuff. Building and upgrading rail lines for high speed service across the country, for instance.
And it should initiate a plan to work with states and private companies to develop regional networks to integrate into a wider national network. It should also bring in airlines and car companies to invest in the new rail system because planes and automobiles can get some money out of real trains if they want to.
Let's consider: Mankato to the Cities is 80 miles. A direct high speed train going 200 MPH would get you to Minneapolis pretty damn quick. Think about it.
Someone should ask McCain and Obama what their plans for our trains are. And they should have serious plans.
Coldplagiarism!
Everyone remembers the infamous case of Vanilla Ice who was accused of ripping off the hook from Queen and David Bowie's 'Under Pressure.' Well, now we have a case for the internet age- with a guy named Andrew Hoepfner (lead singer of a band named Creaky Boards) who has a video on YouTube claiming that Coldplay's new single, Viva La Vida is, in fact, ripped off from his song.
So, watch and compare:
Coldplay
Hoepfner.
I have to say, I wish I knew more about copyright law and intellectual property and all that stuff, because I don't know how any of this works. I really don't. I know that having listened to both songs they do sound similar but I don't know if they're similar enough to win a court case.
So, watch and compare:
Coldplay
Hoepfner.
I have to say, I wish I knew more about copyright law and intellectual property and all that stuff, because I don't know how any of this works. I really don't. I know that having listened to both songs they do sound similar but I don't know if they're similar enough to win a court case.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Election Round-Up
**Obama has a 15 point lead over McCain in a shock poll from Newsweek. I found that to be highly unlikely- but it could be true. According to the article Obama is in a better position at this point than both Gore and Kerry were- which is good, but beware Dukakis! He too, had a 17 point lead and look what happened to him!
**MoveOn.org is closing its 527 in response to Obama's campaign. My blood pressure just went down a notch, thank God.
**There's some flak about Obama's decision to opt out of taking public money this electoral cycle. He's the first candidate since Watergate to do so- and the cries are going up that he's being a hypocrite and he's flip-flopping and so on and so forth. I don't think he's flip-flopping or being hypocritical about it- in fact, I think he makes an important point: the system is broken, so why play by the rules? Plus, we have to consider that Obama has changed the financial model of Presidential elections as we know it. This isn't a typical election and this isn't a typical candidate. He's not a corporate sponsored candidate, he's getting donations from small donors and individuals. I could see the sense of limits with public money if Obama was running the typical campaign with corporate contributions, but he's not, so the argument against it works in my book. Any-hoo, some thoughts on a David Brooks column and commentary from Althouse here.
**MoveOn.org is closing its 527 in response to Obama's campaign. My blood pressure just went down a notch, thank God.
**There's some flak about Obama's decision to opt out of taking public money this electoral cycle. He's the first candidate since Watergate to do so- and the cries are going up that he's being a hypocrite and he's flip-flopping and so on and so forth. I don't think he's flip-flopping or being hypocritical about it- in fact, I think he makes an important point: the system is broken, so why play by the rules? Plus, we have to consider that Obama has changed the financial model of Presidential elections as we know it. This isn't a typical election and this isn't a typical candidate. He's not a corporate sponsored candidate, he's getting donations from small donors and individuals. I could see the sense of limits with public money if Obama was running the typical campaign with corporate contributions, but he's not, so the argument against it works in my book. Any-hoo, some thoughts on a David Brooks column and commentary from Althouse here.
Cheap Beer!
Minnesotans, be PROUD! A Star Tribune article has it that the Metrodome has the cheapest beer in the American league and the 2nd cheapest over-all. WOO!
More Midwives
In response to the AMA's ridiculous resolution regarding home birth, Rick Lake, Jennifer Block and Abby Epstein have written a rebuttal on the Huffington Post- posted here.
As usual, they're right on, firing on all gears- people should gear up for this right now and take on the AMA. We need more options in American health care not less and the doctors have no right to dictate birthing plans to women. Read the article, check out BP4MW and get involved!
As usual, they're right on, firing on all gears- people should gear up for this right now and take on the AMA. We need more options in American health care not less and the doctors have no right to dictate birthing plans to women. Read the article, check out BP4MW and get involved!
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Euro 2008 Updates
I'm going to say it. I don't want to say it, but I'm going to: Germany is going the distance in Euro 2008. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they take the whole thing at this point. They played brilliantly today against a Portuguese side that didn't finish some golden opportunities and was out-matched by a taller German side, who used that advantage to great effect, winning 3-2 and advancing to the semi-finals on some brilliant goals (including a beauty by Schweinsteiger- who came thundering down the field like a freight train to slam home a perfectly shot cross by Klose.
I think this is Germany's for the taking. Croatia might have the magic against Turkey and might get past Germany again- and Nihat is a damn good striker and when he's done with suspension, Volkan Demerel seems to be a solid goalie, but on Germany's side of the draw, Croatia and Turkey have a tall order in front of them if they want to knock Germany out.
The other side of the draw is a bit better. The Netherlands have been playing damn good football, but the Dutch back line gets a bit sloppy and they're up against a Russian side that has sprung more than its share of surprises (Hiddink working his magic, as per usual) in the tournament, so if there's going to be a surprise, it could be there. Spain vs. Italy is Spain's chance to prove they are the real deal once and for all- Spain is famous for choking in tournaments and Italy isn't what it once was (France being an even paler ghost of its former self) so I think that will be a match to watch.
Can anyone beat Germany? I think the Dutch might be able too, but their back line is a weakness. Spain has the speed, but they have to get past Italy first.
But after today, Germany looks damn good. To their credit, Portugal bounced back, but it wasn't enough. Simão was just sloppy and Ronaldo didn't get enough touches in the box to make a difference. But the first major obstacle is gone. Croatia or Turkey will be able to give the Germans a run, but beating them?
After today, that looks a lot harder.
I think this is Germany's for the taking. Croatia might have the magic against Turkey and might get past Germany again- and Nihat is a damn good striker and when he's done with suspension, Volkan Demerel seems to be a solid goalie, but on Germany's side of the draw, Croatia and Turkey have a tall order in front of them if they want to knock Germany out.
The other side of the draw is a bit better. The Netherlands have been playing damn good football, but the Dutch back line gets a bit sloppy and they're up against a Russian side that has sprung more than its share of surprises (Hiddink working his magic, as per usual) in the tournament, so if there's going to be a surprise, it could be there. Spain vs. Italy is Spain's chance to prove they are the real deal once and for all- Spain is famous for choking in tournaments and Italy isn't what it once was (France being an even paler ghost of its former self) so I think that will be a match to watch.
Can anyone beat Germany? I think the Dutch might be able too, but their back line is a weakness. Spain has the speed, but they have to get past Italy first.
But after today, Germany looks damn good. To their credit, Portugal bounced back, but it wasn't enough. Simão was just sloppy and Ronaldo didn't get enough touches in the box to make a difference. But the first major obstacle is gone. Croatia or Turkey will be able to give the Germans a run, but beating them?
After today, that looks a lot harder.
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
HBO aired a documentary of the same title this past week and it's provoked some interesting discussion over on Feministing and Jezebel about the Polanski case and the issues that it raises.
Personally, having seen the bulk of the documentary (think I keep missing like the first ten-fifteen minutes or so) I found it totally fascinating. My knowledge of Roman Polanski (the link is to some documents from The Smoking Gun) was minimal at best: I noticed he didn't accept his 2002 Best Director Oscar in person because he'd probably be arrested if he ever came back here again. And, as some of the discussion linked above notes, my knowledge was basically that he had raped a 13 year old girl and fled.
The documentary revealed that there was much more to the story that I had originally thought. For one thing, this case, like so many others where the defendant is a prominent public figure (see: OJ, Bill Clinton, etc.) the trial was completely bollocks-ed up and no way could one say that Polanski got anything resembling a fair trial. Even the victim was of the opinion that the Judge was more interested in media exposure than in anything resembling justice. And by the end of the story even the prosecuting attorney says that he wasn't surprised that Polanski fled the country under the circumstances.
Then there's the matter of the victim's mother. The discussion at Feministing dagged her with 'Dina Lohan-Syndrome' but one is left asking some serious questions about what the mother was doing leaving her 13 year old daughter alone with a guy who had already raised eyebrows with his relationship with Nastassja Kinski who was 15 at the time. As with the Michael Jackson cases, one has to wonder where exactly the parents are in situations such as these.
That said, I think the filmmaker did an excellent job in not necessarily condemning Polanski outright. Instead, the subtle point is made that this was a guy who had lost his parents in the Holocaust and had a dark side because of it. He wrestled with his demons and just when everyone thought he had found someone to help him conquer them once and for all (Sharon Tate, murdered by Charlie Manson) that stability is taken away from in one fell swoop. The telling parts of the documentary to me, are the interviews with his friends that recount his almost total devastation and collapse at the death of his wife. The filmmaker does not excuse Polanski's behavior, (nor do I! Sex with a 13 year old girl is JUST PLAIN WRONG! Especially when you drug her with a qualuude beforehand!!) but the underlying point is this: something was inevitable. It seems like Polanski's collapse after the death of his wife was so complete that if it hadn't been sex with an underage girl, it would have been drugs, booze, something else.
Polanski is not let off the hook, nor should he be- but after viewing the documentary you are left with the knowledge that this was a man who wrestled with his demons and after the death of his wife, his demons won. That shouldn't be an excuse for his behavior and he should be held accountable for what he did, but in the end, justice took a backseat to a media frenzy and in the end, accountability lost out. For the victim, for Polanski- nobody came out a winner in this one.
Personally, having seen the bulk of the documentary (think I keep missing like the first ten-fifteen minutes or so) I found it totally fascinating. My knowledge of Roman Polanski (the link is to some documents from The Smoking Gun) was minimal at best: I noticed he didn't accept his 2002 Best Director Oscar in person because he'd probably be arrested if he ever came back here again. And, as some of the discussion linked above notes, my knowledge was basically that he had raped a 13 year old girl and fled.
The documentary revealed that there was much more to the story that I had originally thought. For one thing, this case, like so many others where the defendant is a prominent public figure (see: OJ, Bill Clinton, etc.) the trial was completely bollocks-ed up and no way could one say that Polanski got anything resembling a fair trial. Even the victim was of the opinion that the Judge was more interested in media exposure than in anything resembling justice. And by the end of the story even the prosecuting attorney says that he wasn't surprised that Polanski fled the country under the circumstances.
Then there's the matter of the victim's mother. The discussion at Feministing dagged her with 'Dina Lohan-Syndrome' but one is left asking some serious questions about what the mother was doing leaving her 13 year old daughter alone with a guy who had already raised eyebrows with his relationship with Nastassja Kinski who was 15 at the time. As with the Michael Jackson cases, one has to wonder where exactly the parents are in situations such as these.
That said, I think the filmmaker did an excellent job in not necessarily condemning Polanski outright. Instead, the subtle point is made that this was a guy who had lost his parents in the Holocaust and had a dark side because of it. He wrestled with his demons and just when everyone thought he had found someone to help him conquer them once and for all (Sharon Tate, murdered by Charlie Manson) that stability is taken away from in one fell swoop. The telling parts of the documentary to me, are the interviews with his friends that recount his almost total devastation and collapse at the death of his wife. The filmmaker does not excuse Polanski's behavior, (nor do I! Sex with a 13 year old girl is JUST PLAIN WRONG! Especially when you drug her with a qualuude beforehand!!) but the underlying point is this: something was inevitable. It seems like Polanski's collapse after the death of his wife was so complete that if it hadn't been sex with an underage girl, it would have been drugs, booze, something else.
Polanski is not let off the hook, nor should he be- but after viewing the documentary you are left with the knowledge that this was a man who wrestled with his demons and after the death of his wife, his demons won. That shouldn't be an excuse for his behavior and he should be held accountable for what he did, but in the end, justice took a backseat to a media frenzy and in the end, accountability lost out. For the victim, for Polanski- nobody came out a winner in this one.
Argh! Over-confidence!
I hate articles such as these! First of all, ain't nobody voted on nothing just yet, so don't get cocky! I am as horrified by the prospect of a McCain presidency as much as the next person- but OBAMA HASN'T WON A DAMN THING YET! Don't be publishing crap that proclaims he's got the general election pretty much sorted out! ARGH! The Left canNOT afford to get cocky about this election- there's way too much at stake.
First of all: Don't underestimate McCain. He may be older than dirt, but the GOP rank and file all but wrote him off in the primaries and look where he is now. He may not be the most exciting of candidates, but we're at war, the economy is taking a huge dump and people in the end, may not want to be excited.
Second of all: Don't underestimate this oil drilling thing. I've seen the usual screeds on the left, some of them sensible, some of them not, taking McCain, Bush and the GOP to task for promoting an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling. (Interestingly enough, per MPR this afternoon Tim Walz here in the MN-First District is proposing legislation that would force oil companies to return unused leases. And if oil companies aren't using leases that they could be using, then why do we need offshore drilling?) But regardless, this could be the wedge issue they could beat Obama with. Really and truly. Obama and Company need a clear cut plan to get relief to the gas pumps and they need it right now. And they need to prove that it is better than John McCain's. McCain further continues intelligent moves by asking for 45 more nuclear reactors. Another slap in the face that has the potential to lose this election for Obama. Nuclear power is clean and has the potential to be the perfect transitional technology to get us off fossil fuels until green technology is perfected. Nuke plants have to be met with the necessary investment to do that.
Basically, the Left has a problem with the environmental movement. It is right to protest domestic drilling plans, because if we don't match domestic drilling with the necessary investment in green tech, then we're not doing a damn thing to help ourselves. BUT- environmentalism doesn't get us relief at the gas pumps anytime soon. And make no mistake, right now, I think the first person to convince voters they can get cheaper gas prices faster might just win the election.
Third of all: My objections to the article aside, Jindal is a rising star within the GOP. If he can get re-elected in Louisiana and get it back on the right track, he'll be one to watch- maybe not in 2012- more likely in 2016. Jindal is young enough to play for time when it comes to potentially running for the big show. I think it's going to take at least 8 years for the GOP to sort itself out and bring something palatable to the electorate. Even if McCain gets elected, it'll be because of Obama mis-steps not necessarily because he's a dynamic kind of guy- and even if he does, I think the predictions that a McCain presidency would be the last death-rattle of 20th Century conservatism are probably true.
But watch out for Jindal in the future. And in the meantime, don't get cocky.
First of all: Don't underestimate McCain. He may be older than dirt, but the GOP rank and file all but wrote him off in the primaries and look where he is now. He may not be the most exciting of candidates, but we're at war, the economy is taking a huge dump and people in the end, may not want to be excited.
Second of all: Don't underestimate this oil drilling thing. I've seen the usual screeds on the left, some of them sensible, some of them not, taking McCain, Bush and the GOP to task for promoting an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling. (Interestingly enough, per MPR this afternoon Tim Walz here in the MN-First District is proposing legislation that would force oil companies to return unused leases. And if oil companies aren't using leases that they could be using, then why do we need offshore drilling?) But regardless, this could be the wedge issue they could beat Obama with. Really and truly. Obama and Company need a clear cut plan to get relief to the gas pumps and they need it right now. And they need to prove that it is better than John McCain's. McCain further continues intelligent moves by asking for 45 more nuclear reactors. Another slap in the face that has the potential to lose this election for Obama. Nuclear power is clean and has the potential to be the perfect transitional technology to get us off fossil fuels until green technology is perfected. Nuke plants have to be met with the necessary investment to do that.
Basically, the Left has a problem with the environmental movement. It is right to protest domestic drilling plans, because if we don't match domestic drilling with the necessary investment in green tech, then we're not doing a damn thing to help ourselves. BUT- environmentalism doesn't get us relief at the gas pumps anytime soon. And make no mistake, right now, I think the first person to convince voters they can get cheaper gas prices faster might just win the election.
Third of all: My objections to the article aside, Jindal is a rising star within the GOP. If he can get re-elected in Louisiana and get it back on the right track, he'll be one to watch- maybe not in 2012- more likely in 2016. Jindal is young enough to play for time when it comes to potentially running for the big show. I think it's going to take at least 8 years for the GOP to sort itself out and bring something palatable to the electorate. Even if McCain gets elected, it'll be because of Obama mis-steps not necessarily because he's a dynamic kind of guy- and even if he does, I think the predictions that a McCain presidency would be the last death-rattle of 20th Century conservatism are probably true.
But watch out for Jindal in the future. And in the meantime, don't get cocky.
I Love Despair
ABC gave Despair.com some love on Nightline last night- and it is beyond AWESOME! If you haven't gone to Despair.com, you need to go right now and check it out. It is some hilariously funny stuff- and now they're expanding into t-shirts. I myself have at least two posters (power and adversity) and I gave my Dad two more for his birthday a couple of years ago. An all around awesome site- and if there was one company I wish I could work for full time, it'd be Despair.
Go! Now! Here!
Go! Now! Here!
Pregnancy Pact
This is a story that's popped up on the 'net today: 17 girls at Gloucester High School are pregnant and apparently they meant to get pregnant- they had a pact to have babies and raise them together. Plus, one of the fathers is a '24-year-old homeless guy' according to Time.
Well, this is why abstinence only sex education is idiotic beyond belief. The article of course points out that some people are blaming movies like Juno and Knocked Up for 'glamorizing unwed motherhood' but I think that's just the knee-jerk reaction of conservatives who get more mileage out of blaming Hollywood than blaming their own idiotic policies.
To me, sex education is very simple: the bulk of it needs to start at home. Parents need to teach their kids to make the right choices for them- abstinence, safe-sex, whatever. Conservatives tend to have the right idea here- sex education like drinking is going to have to be tackled not by laws and not by teachers, but by shifting cultural attitudes at home. And blindly promoting abstinence while leaving kids in the dark about the basic facts of contraception strikes me as remarkably silly.
I'm not a parent (yet) but I do work with high schoolers. Some of them are smart, grounded and responsible and some of them are stupid, moronic and the furthest thing you could imagine from responsible- and the rest of them fall along the spectrum between those two extremes. Keeping them ignorant about the consequences of sex is probably the stupidest thing I can think of doing: the quickest way to get some of these kids to do something is to tell them not to do it.
I think the answer is a combination: schools can push abstinence until they're blue in the face if they want- but they also have a responsibility to educate kids on the basics of birth control options. Maybe they don't give condoms out in school, maybe they don't pass out numbers of places kids can go to get condoms or birth control pills but they should say, 'hey, dummy this is how you use a condom!'
And parents need to step up and do their part as well. Talk to your kids. Information is power. If you've raised them right, give them the information and trust them to make the right choice. And impress upon them that if they're not prepared to accept the consequences of having sex, then they shouldn't be havin' it!
Well, this is why abstinence only sex education is idiotic beyond belief. The article of course points out that some people are blaming movies like Juno and Knocked Up for 'glamorizing unwed motherhood' but I think that's just the knee-jerk reaction of conservatives who get more mileage out of blaming Hollywood than blaming their own idiotic policies.
To me, sex education is very simple: the bulk of it needs to start at home. Parents need to teach their kids to make the right choices for them- abstinence, safe-sex, whatever. Conservatives tend to have the right idea here- sex education like drinking is going to have to be tackled not by laws and not by teachers, but by shifting cultural attitudes at home. And blindly promoting abstinence while leaving kids in the dark about the basic facts of contraception strikes me as remarkably silly.
I'm not a parent (yet) but I do work with high schoolers. Some of them are smart, grounded and responsible and some of them are stupid, moronic and the furthest thing you could imagine from responsible- and the rest of them fall along the spectrum between those two extremes. Keeping them ignorant about the consequences of sex is probably the stupidest thing I can think of doing: the quickest way to get some of these kids to do something is to tell them not to do it.
I think the answer is a combination: schools can push abstinence until they're blue in the face if they want- but they also have a responsibility to educate kids on the basics of birth control options. Maybe they don't give condoms out in school, maybe they don't pass out numbers of places kids can go to get condoms or birth control pills but they should say, 'hey, dummy this is how you use a condom!'
And parents need to step up and do their part as well. Talk to your kids. Information is power. If you've raised them right, give them the information and trust them to make the right choice. And impress upon them that if they're not prepared to accept the consequences of having sex, then they shouldn't be havin' it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
